1951-06-12

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Veterans Affairs inform the house whether legislative or any other necessary steps will be taken to make sure that burnt-out pensioners over seventy years of age, when they receive the universal old age pension, do not lose the burnt-out pension or the treatment or hospitalization benefits they now enjoy?


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend will permit, I shall take his question as notice and look into the matter. I would rather read his question in Hansard before making a statement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is satisfactory.



POST OFFICE ACT


Hon. Edouard Rinfret (Postmaster General) moved: the third reading of Bill No. 322, respecting the Canada post office.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I propose to move, seconded by the member for Peel (Mr. Graydon):
That this bill be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of reconsidering section 11 thereof.
I shall make my comments after the motion is read.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may make his comments now.


George Alexander Drew: I am presenting this motion in the hope that it will receive the same measure of consideration as was extended to other contentions that were put forward. The amendments introduced yesterday at the instance of the Postmaster General did relieve to some extent the postal charges on newspapers with a circulation of 10,000 or more. As I indicated at that time, it is not
possible to say how satisfactory or otherwise this provision will be until there is an opportunity of examining its effect on newspapers that come within that category. In any event, the government has clearly indicated that this is as far as it is prepared to go. For that reason I am not directing my comments to that, although the purpose of this further consideration does embrace the possibility that these reductions will not be adequate.
I repeat what I said yesterday, that this is not a case of subsidizing newspapers. The provision for special postal rates for newspapers is primarily for the purpose of making newspapers available to those who cannot satisfactorily obtain them by other means. It is possible for persons living in urban communities to have newspapers delivered to their doon, or to buy them on the street corners or in stores. In those areas where there are fast trunk highways, trucking has largely taken the place of postal delivery. Trucks carry newspapers for hundreds of miles, and they are then delivered in precisely the same way in the smaller urban communities as they are in the larger urban communities, that is, from door to door, through stores, or from street corners. The postal service is a facility extended to those who do not happen to live in areas in which these opportunities are ordinarily available, and it should be regarded in that light. The proposed postal rates on the large urban dailies were reduced to some extent by the amendment put forward' yesterday by the Postmaster General and moved by one of the other member; that reduction to some extent relieved the situation. I will not extend my comments on that point but, as I said yesterday, I do not believe the reductions are adequate.
What I am particularly dealing with now is the fact that nothing has been done to relieve the situation in which the smaller newspapers, with a circulation of less than ten thousand, now find themselves. The statement has been made by highly responsible representatives of those smaller newspapers that these rates may put them out of business. That may or may not be an overstatement of the case. In any event, there have been indications of great concern right across the country about the effect of these increased rates on the smaller newspapers, which, it must be remembered, have not

Post Office Act
available to them the advertising resources which are available to the larger newspapers.
I believe that further consideration should be given to section 11 with regard' to the rates on the large urban dailies. I particularly think that further consideration should be given to the rates for postal delivery of those smaller newspapers for which no relief was afforded by the amendment introduced yesterday. It must be remembered that in many of the cases where mail service is the only way in which people can obtain these papers, the only papers immediately available to them are the smaller newspapers. The smaller newspapers form a vitally important part of our whole democratic process. In many cases they say that, under these rates, they will be compelled to stop delivery of their papers. Whether the Postmaster General agrees with that assertion or not, I submit that before this bill becomes law their contention should at least be heard. Such a hearing would not mean an extended delay of the consideration of this bill. It simply would mean that the bill would go back for further consideration of section 11, and that, with the indication already given by the government that they are prepared to give some consideration to this problem, those who represent the newspapers of Canada-both the large urban dailies and the smaller dailies as well as the weeklies-may have an opportunity to present their case before this matter is finally disposed of and these rates become irrevocable.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to add a word or two to what was said yesterday with regard to the setting up of a board of review under section 7 of the act. The question was raised, I think, by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy), having been presented to the minister by the Toronto board of trade. I wish to refer briefly to the answer which the minister gave, to suggest that I think the situation is not satisfactory, and to express the hope that the minister may reconsider the decision which has been given.
As to the appointment of a special board of review, I need not detain the house by reminding hon. members what an important matter to any business enterprise or to anyone else is the use of the mails, and what a serious thing it can be if the use of them is refused, particularly in such a way as to draw attention to the fact that a business enterprise is under suspicion.

With regard to the appointment of a board, the minister's answer, as reported at page 3921 of Hansard, was as follows:
Any independent board that might be nominated . . . would, I suppose, be a board like the railway board or the air transport board . . .
I must admit that if something of the kind were to be done, it would be like taking a steam hammer to crack a nut, because we do not want to have permanent boards set up to deal with matters which may seldom arise. I do not think that is at all a complete answer. If the minister wishes to give effect to the suggestion which was made, I think that it could easily enough be done.
As to the question of appeal, the minister brushed that aside lightly. He said, as reported at page 3921 of Hansard:
The brief of the board of trade of the city of Toronto also mentions the question of an appeal; but it was not felt that the discretion should be taken away from the Postmaster General. I realize that it is quite a heavy responsibility, but I think it is one that a minister of the crown should be ready to accept.
It may be pleasant for us to know that the ministers of the crown are ready to accept responsibility, but sometimes we may think that they are ready to accept a little bit too much. I wish to point out that in the one case where, I understand-perhaps in some informal way-a board of review was set up, the members of the board were the chief executive officer of the department-that is, of the Post Office Department-the law officer of the department, and the director of administration. Without any disrespect to these gentlemen, and indeed without any disrespect to the minister, I wish to point out that such an appeal is really no appeal at all, and that we are just playing with words if we are asking members of the minister's department to review the action of the minister. It is not fair to the minister; it is not fair to the members of the department; it is not fair to anyone, and it does not make sense. I therefore venture to put this point forward and to suggest that, if no reconsideration can be given at the moment, at any rate the matter be kept before the minister for future consideration.


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like briefly to support as strongly as I can what has just been said by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell). I think that his protest has point given to it by what happened last year on several occasions. I am not going to go over the long story of those occasions on which strong complaint was made about denying the

use of the mails to certain persons. The matter was discussed in this house last year.
The appointment of a committee may be some advance on the present state of affairs, but, Mr. Speaker, it is not a sufficient advance. If the committee is simply to be a departmental committee, no matter how conscientious or how capable the officials may be, it is still a departmental committee; and I do not see how the policy of the department could fail to have an influence on the minds of the members of such a committee.
If the minister is adamant in insisting that the committee take the form indicated in the bill, then I submit to him that the very least that ought to be done to mitigate the rigours of a provision of that kind is to provide an appeal to the courts, as has been suggested by the hon. member for Greenwood, and as has been proposed in the extremely intelligent brief submitted to the minister by the Toronto board of trade. After all, what reasonable objection can there be to allowing an appeal to persons who suffer this grave disability of being denied the use of the mails? Remember that this power in the hands of the minister, even under a committee, could be used with damaging effect on anyone's business and reputation. What possible objection can there be in a situation of that kind to allowing an aggrieved individual to go to the courts by way of appeal from the decision of the committee? For the life of me, Mr. Speaker, I cannot see why this objection should be taken by the minister and by the government to allowing any person to go to the courts in appeal against what he contended is an arbitrary and unjustified use of these broad powers conferred by the bill in cases of this kind.
I urge upon the minister that, before it is too late, provision should be made in this bill at least to allow an individual against whom this extremely wide power has been exercised to take his case to the courts by way of appeal.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I see no very useful purpose in referring this bill back to the committee of the whole on third reading for reconsideration of the clause dealing with newspapers generally. Most of us have some sympathy with the position in which the rural and small papers find themselves at this time; but we must not overlook the fact that in reality the newspapers of Canada-and the principal beneficiaries are the large newspapers of Canada-will soon be getting an annual subsidy of something in excess of $10 million.
As I understand it, the deficit last year on this particular business was $12 million. In
Post Office Act
other words, what the country has been doing is subsidizing newspapers, large and small, to the extent of some $12 million a year. Again let me repeat that when a short time ago this house voted $65 million as a compensatory adjustment to the farmers of western Canada for a period of five years, as my hon. friend points out, or $13 million a year, as it were, these newspapers were critical of the compensation granted to the grain growers of Canada. And here we are proposing to subsidize these newspapers to the extent of $10 million a year for a long period of time. We are simply substituting $10 million for $12 million a year. Consequently I think they have no legitimate complaint against what this house is doing at the present time.
Let me point out to hon. members that unfortunately while most of us are anxious to preserve a free press, the press is becoming less free all the time, because even many of the weekly rural newspapers are being bought up by powerful interests in this country. I need only to refer to the Thomson chain in this province which is buying up weekly newspapers and controlling them in the interests of, we will say, private profits rather than the dissemination of news and discussion of views. To my mind one of the great dangers in our democratic countries is the control by a few small groups of individuals of newspapers and news services with a mass circulation in the areas which they serve. That, I say, is a danger to our democratic institutions. If some people want to use the newspapers today as monopolistic news gathering and news disseminating services, then I do not think this parliament should subsidize to the extent we are subsidizing at the present time. Consequently, Mr. Speaker, in view of what the house is doing, namely, granting to them today by this bill a subsidy of something like $10.190,000 a year instead of $12 million which we have been paying for a long time, the house is being very generous indeed, particularly with the large daily newspapers. The bill also contains provisions designed to ease the burden of postage on the local small weeklies across the country. Consequently I think no good purpose can be served by referring this back to the committee for review.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question? Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.

Post Office Act


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


An hon. Member:: A waste of time.


Mr. Casselman:: It is not a waste of time at all.


George Alexander Drew: Parliament is a waste of time to some members.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Yukon-Mackenzie River (Mr. Simmons). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works) moved: that the house go into committee of supply.



COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I propose to employ this motion for the purpose of introducing an amendment, the first purpose of which is the raising of an issue which I believe is of major importance to this house, and which has been under consideration for many years.
I shall read the amendment which I propose to move, so that my remarks may be directed to it and hon. members may know precisely what I am moving. The amendment reads:
That all the words after "that" to the end of the question be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"This house is of the opinion that appropriate steps should be taken for the appointment of a

select committee to consider with Mr. Speaker the procedure of this house for the purpose of making recommendations designed to assure the more expeditious dispatch of public business and to suggest any changes that may be desirable."
This subject has been under discussion for many years, and public funds of Canada have-been appropriated for the purpose of obtaining information in regard to this subject and of making recommendations which the house was asked to consider for the purpose of producing the results contemplated by this motion. I have introduced the motion in the form of a recommendation that appropriate steps be taken, recognizing the fact that this purpose will be accomplished only if the government is prepared to take the initiative and introduce a motion similar to the motions which have been introduced in the past with this thought in mind.
Such a motion was moved in this house on May 21, 1940, by the then prime minister. The words were similar in effect, but they took the form of a positive motion to set up a committee, as was in keeping with a motion introduced by the prime minister. After considerable discussion of the subject on that occasion and an indication of general agreement in all parts of the house that steps of this kind were necessary, the motion was withdrawn, not because it was considered inadvisable to proceed with such a matter but rather because it was thought that changes of this kind could well be deferred during the period of the world war which was then in progress.
At a later date the Speaker of the house at that time, Hon. Gaspard Fauteux, proceeded to Great Britain, accompanied by Dr. Arthur Beauchesne, and considered the procedure in Great Britain as well as elsewhere. The Speaker presented a report to the House of Commons, which, as I know Your Honour will recall, related also to voice-amplification equipment for the chamber. That report was laid on the table on December 5, 1947, and was printed for distribution to hon. members as well as for general distribution.
The opening paragraph of that report indicates how long this subject has been under discussion and how general the agreement has been that steps should be taken to consider a revision of the rules and the acceptance of new procedures which would expedite the business of the house. I should like to read the first paragraph of the report, because it indicates the basis upon which the Speaker was proceeding. When I speak of this report as being the report of the Speaker, may I again remind hon. members that the Speaker was accompanied by Dr. .Arthur Beauchesne, whose eminence and
House of Commons
authority in the field of parliamentary procedure is unanimously accepted in this house, outside the house in Canada, and also beyond the bounds of Canada. We can recognize the fact that in presenting this report the Speaker had the advantage of advice from the man who is the most experienced of anyone in Canada in matters of this kind. The first paragraph reads:
Complaints have been made in the past tew years that protracted sessions of parliament are caused by deficiencies in the rules of procedure. Criticism has been widespread and sometimes based on misconceptions. Several attempts to revise the rules were made during the last and the present parliaments, but they had no results. On May 21, 1940, the Prime Minister moved the appointment of a select committee to consider with Mr. Speaker the procedure of this house in regard to a more expeditious dispatch of public business and to suggest any changes that may be desirable. After a short discussion the motion was withdrawn unanimously.
As I have indicated, the reason the previous motion was withdrawn was that it was accepted that it was advisable to defer changes of this kind until the termination of the war. A number of speakers on both sides of the house indicated their strong support of a motion of this kind. On May 26, 1942, not speaking to this particular motion but in regard to the whole question of procedure in the house, Mr. Ilsley stated, as reported on page 2774 of Hansard of that date:
In my judgment parliament is more and more on trial, at the bar of public opinion. There is something wrong with this House of Commons. I am not reflecting on the house, and I do not know what is the cause. But there is something wrong with it.
Then on February 9, 1943, the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), also speaking in the house in regard to procedure, had this to say, as reported on page 291 of Hansard:
Some of the criticism about the House of Commons and its working is just misinformed.
And later:
Other comment on the working of parliament results from the feeling that there is room for improvement and that we can do something about it so as to make parliament the great forum of the nation and a better expression of the national will.
And again:
If there is one answer to be made to the criticisms so far made about parliament it is that nobody seems to have studied and expressed why it is defective, if it is defective; what can be done to change it, what should be done, and when.
On the same day Mr. P. J. A. Cardin in this house, as recorded at page 280 of Hansard:
Our rules of procedure are obsolete. They have been framed after the rules followed at Westminster, but here we have not developed the methods and customs prevailing at Westminster. There is an urgent necessity for a change in the rules of the house, a change in our methods of procedure.

House of Commons
Then I find that on February 1, 1943, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) had this to say, as recorded at page 60 of Hansard:
I was disappointed, however, to hear the Prime Minister say that he thought a revision of the rules of the house ought not to be undertaken during this period of war.
Then the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar went on to review what he had seen in the House of Commons at Westminster, and the dispatch with which the business was completed there. He then continued with these remarks:
I have read the rules of some of our sister nations, New Zealand, for example, where the rules have been changed' in comparatively recent years; and in my opinion if we would modernize the rules we could do very much in this house without interfering with freedom of expression or freedom of speech.
More recently, on June 25, 1947, the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) suggested twenty specific changes in our rules. Those changes, which are recorded in Hansard, indicated his considered thought from extended experience in the house as to ways in which the rules could be improved by the attaining of a more expeditious procedure in the House of Commons.
May I point out that the report presented by the Speaker on December 5, 1947, had a number of very excellent recommendations which have not been carried out, and which undoubtedly deserve consideration. After all, this report was presented to the house more than two years after the termination of active hostilities. Any reasons for deferring consideration of this subject that may have existed in May of 1940, when the then prime minister presented a motion similar in intent to the one now before you, had been removed, and we may very properly say that they do not exist today.
One of the recommendations made at that time had to do with a subject that has been under discussion on various occasions, not only during the present session but also in other sessions in recent years. It is to be found in paragraph 22 of the recommendations presented by the Speaker to the House of Commons. That paragraph reads ds follows:
The House of Commons in the United Kingdom is now contemplating a combination of the public accounts committee and the estimates committee, making them a single committee to be called the public expenditure committee. There is great logic in that. The public accounts committee works on moneys already spent; the amounts considered in committee on estimates, before payments are made, eventually become items for the consideration of the public accounts committee. There should be 
no limitation to the jurisdiction of the new committee which ought to investigate anything it thinks fit with regard to estimates and regularity in the payment of expenses.
If there were no other specific recommendations in the report of the Speaker tabled in the house on December 5, 1947, that one recommendation contained in paragraph 22 would deserve consideration by a committee of the nature I am now proposing. May I emphasize the words of the Speaker, not quoted by him from anyone else, but his own conclusion. He said:
There should be no limitation to the jurisdiction of the new committee which ought to investigate anything it thinks fit with regard to estimates and regularity in the payment of expenses.
There are many other recommendations, intended to simplify procedure, to give orderly direction to the procedure of the house, to ensure that with the more expeditious dispatch of business in the house there nevertheless shall be the preservation of the rights of members with respect to motions such as those made on going into supply. All these deserve consideration; but let me emphasize the importance of the particular recommendation to which I have referred. We have a public accounts committee which is not permitted to examine accounts after March 31 of the year before the year in which the committee sits. After all, it is a useful committee and could be more useful for the purpose of checking procedure, ensuring a review of auditing methods, and the adoption of the very excellent recommendations of the Auditor General which are made year by year.
In a time of rapidly expanding expenditures, however, a review of past business more than a year old is of little advantage to the members of the house in determining whether the greatly expanded expenditures are in keeping with the demands for economy as well as for the very necessary purposes for which they are designed. If there ever was a time when it should be possible for a committee to examine expected expenditures, it is at a time when there is an enormous increase in the request of the government for money to provide the necessary expansion of our defence organization and equipment, which does, however, introduce many types of -completely new governmental activities which will not be covered by the public accounts that can be considered in the ordinary, way by the public accounts committee.
I would point out that when the Speaker recommended in 1947 that we should follow the practice being recommended at Westminster of combining the activities of the

public accounts committee and the committee on estimates, in that very recommendation he was emphasizing something which we should bear in mind. There has been a committee on estimates in the United Kingdom for a great many years. That committee deals with the estimates that are presented, and avoids a great deal of the discussion that takes place in this house, to which many hon. members, particularly on the government side, repeatedly object.
May I suggest to those members who are constantly objecting to the length of time devoted to the questioning of ministers with respect to the estimates before the house that if they do not want that discussion to take place here, neither do we. We say that the place for that discussion to take place, to the advantage of the business of the house and the people of Canada, is in a committee where departmental officials can be brought forward, where details can be explained in a much more businesslike way than in the House of Commons, and where a discussion can take place concurrently with the ordinary business of the house. Our experience in the house is that with the appointment of committees made up of representatives chosen from the different parties in the house, there is a very strong inclination on the part of members generally to accept the recommendations of such committees. I am confident that if we had a committee on estimates, in the majority of cases there would be little new discussion concerning the details, because the members here would know that other members in whom they had confidence had examined the estimates, had obtained the information and were satisfied. Where there was a difference of opinion indicated by the members of the committee, then the members here would undoubtedly be inclined to carry forward the discussion in that area in which there was a difference of opinion. I am satisfied that in most cases that would be the only area of continuing discussion in this house. The area of discussion in this house in regard to the estimates would, therefore, be substantially reduced. This would expedite the business, not merely by weeks but perhaps even by months, and it would be much better handled within a shorter time.
May I refer again, and certainly without any apology, to another subject that has been under discussion concerning a means of improving the conduct of business in this house, and most important business. I am referring to the appointment of a committee
House of Commons
on defence expenditures. I repeat the suggestion, because I believe that this is an appropriate time to point out that we have had defence under discussion here not only since the estimates came forward but on the speech from the throne, on the budget debate and again on the different occasions on which the minister has made announcements prior to the introduction of his estimates. Those estimates are to be considered again. Many new events will have occurred, and a completely new debate will take place, and ought to take place. Then, if we follow the procedure we have followed, after another short discussion the estimates will be withdrawn, held back; new events will occur in different parts of the world, and new bases for discussion will arise. If, Mr. Speaker, there were a committee on defence expenditure, appointed by the parties in this house, and made up, I should imagine, largely of those gallant members on both sides of the house who have served this country in two world wars, there would be little inclination on the part of other members to question their recommendations wherever they were unanimous. We would doubtless find that the number of items on which there was a difference of opinion would be limited. There would be a discussion on those items. There would, of course, be a general debate on defence, but that general debate would take place with the advantage of an examination of the estimates before the members of this house engaged in such a general debate.
May I also point out, sir, that by procedures of this kind we could avoid two extended debates, one following the motion to approve the speech from the throne, and the other following the motion to go into supply after the introduction of the budget. Because of the fact we have no such committee, members are naturally inclined to range over a wide field. They do not know when they will have an opportunity of discussing any of these subjects at a later time. If they knew there was going to be an examination in. the committee, and that committee reports were to be presented in regard to each of the departments, they would know that at that time they could make appropriate comments concerning any subject of general interest throughout Canada or of concern to their own constituents.
I feel sure that hon. members of this house know that in the United Kingdom, as a result of consideration of procedure in the house, they have avoided these two general debates which range over such a wide field. There is a general debate, not covering the extended period which it does here, on the motion

House of Commons
to approve the speech from the throne. But there is no general debate of a similar nature at the time the budget is introduced. The debate on the budget is a debate on that particular subject, and also on the subsequent bills that are introduced-which, I may say, are now before the House of Commons at Westminster.
I have only touched on some of the subjects that have been raised and some of the arguments that have been put forward, some of which have been put forward with even greater vigour by members on the other side of the house. I have sought to avoid anything of a controversial nature relating to any comments I may have made on other occasions during this session in regard to procedure, because I am presenting this motion in the earnest hope that it will be adopted. I hope that the earlier arguments from all parts of the house will be accepted at this time, and that we can have an examination of the procedure of this house, consistent with complete freedom of debate, to devise a method that will assure the more expeditious dispatch of the public business of Canada.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the government, and I am sure most members, if not all members of the house, welcome at least the substance of the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). Before declaring expressly that we should be glad to accept it, I should like to see the exact language that is used. The substance, however, is one which we welcome, and which I believe the whole house will welcome. I am taking it for granted that the leader of the opposition and the members of his party are making this suggestion in an earnest desire to bring about improvements in the manner in which the business of the house can be conducted, to the end that sufficient opportunity for careful consideration may be provided, but also that repetitions may be avoided of anything that might consume time without producing really beneficial results for the country at large.
I believe, in view of the announcement I made the other day, that this would be an opportune time to have a select committee to consider with Mr. Speaker the procedure, and to study all the suggestions that from time to time have been made in the house. The committee perhaps might not have its report ready for the opening days of the next session, but I think that during the next session, because of the fact it will be a session in which we shall ask the house to give priority to government business so that we may clean up the arrears and start with a fresh slate in 1952, we could perhaps resolve to

adopt as an experiment some of these suggestions for the duration of the session. The experience we would gain might help the committee come to some conclusions for more permanent changes.
There has been, for instance, the suggestion that each day there be an uninterrupted sitting that would end around seven o'clock in the evening. We might possibly accept the suggestion that we start at one o'clock or two o'clock. Even if we started at two o'clock we would be losing only two hours of the normal week under the present rules, because there are four days when we sit for six hours, and there is one day when we sit for three hours. If we had five days when we sat five hours, it would make twenty-five hours instead of twenty-seven. If we accepted the suggestion made the other day by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) to commence sittings at one o'clock, we would really be increasing the normal number of hours in the week, because we would have five days of six hours each, or thirty hours instead of twenty-seven. That is something to which consideration can be given.
With respect to the suggestion made about committees on estimates I would be happy, as I am sure would a large number of members in the house, if we could adopt a procedure that would function as does the procedure that has been adopted at Westminster. Hon. members realize, of course, that at Westminster there is a limitation on debate, and that a relatively short time is allotted for the consideration of estimates in their committee of the whole after the estimates have been considered in the committee on estimates. The committee on estimates does not attempt to range over the whole field of the estimates, but rather picks out one department or more and goes carefully into the estimates of that one department or more, the choice being made by the opposition. I think that procedure might be quite acceptable, and could at least be tried out here.
As to a committee on defence expenditures, we did not think that during this session such a committee would provide useful results, because the defence department and the defence production department are just getting under way and are obliged to devote a great deal of time to organizing. We know that, during the last war, the war expenditures committee was extremely helpful to the government as well as to the country; because I think that it is essential, in order to have support from the public, that there be such inquiries and such checking as do satisfy the public that their money is being properly expended. That procedure is of value to the

very existence of democratic institutions1. On all those matters, if, without it being looked upon as too restrictive of the rights of members, we could accept the kind of arrangement that it has been found possible to carry out at Westminster, I think it would be highly desirable.
I have now had an opportunity of reading the language of the motion submitted by the leader of the opposition. I take it that the leader of the opposition does not intend this motion as one of no confidence in the government.


George Alexander Drew: Oh, no.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I take it that he intends it merely as an expression of the opinion of the members that there is room for improvement in our rules.


George Alexander Drew: Just so that it will be a matter of record, may I say that I sought to convey that understanding. I sought to convey that it is not intended as a motion of non-confidence. It was for that very reason that I carefully refrained from anything that could be regarded as critical of discussion during this present session. I rather sought to place it upon the ground of reason and of argument, supported by the arguments which had been made over the years on this very subject.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am glad that the leader of the opposition wished to have that statement appear on the record. I take it, as I think we all do, it is merely that this opportunity is being used for the expression of the views of members of parliament on the possibility of improving our procedure. I know that there are precedents which indicate that after an amendment to a motion to go into committee of supply has been accepted by the house, a motion to set up the committee is then necessary, and, after that, a motion that the Speaker do now leave the chair, which is the usual motion on going into committee of supply. It is a new motion after an amende ment has been carried.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Citation 489, Beauchesne's second edition.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: "Now" is a new period of time. It may very well be that the house, though not prepared to accept the motion that was made three-quarters of an hour ago, and wishing to use it as an opportunity for expressing some specific views, would be prepared a little later on to accept another motion relating to another period of time.
In order to do something realistic about this matter, I think that consideration might be given to setting up, as we did in connection with the amplification system for the house, 80709-252
House of Commons
a small striking committee that would confer with Mr. Speaker to select the working committee that would then consider with him the suggestions that might be made with respect to changes in the rules. I should be happy indeed to see this amendment adopted, on the understanding that it is an expression of the views of the house; and if it is adopted, I shall then be glad to suggest-if that course seems to meet with the approval of the house-that we set up perhaps the same small striking committee we had with respect to the amplification system, to consider and to recommend a list of members to make up this select committee to co-operate with Mr. Speaker and suggest any changes that may be desirable in the rules.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I think this amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) serves a useful purpose. We have had motions and amendments of a similar kind over the years since I have been here, and we have not yet accomplished what the leader of the opposition, and I am sure, other members of the house, wish to accomplish, namely, a revision of the procedures and methods of doing business in this house so that we can deal with matters more intelligently and more expeditiously.
I do not know whether we could adopt somewhat the same procedure as is followed in the mother of parliaments. With their long experience a procedure has been worked out which has, of course, the effect of largely limiting the right of the private member to participate in debates. We have never done that here. But the suggestion that a small striking committee be established to choose a committee to assist Mr. Speaker in a revision of the rules of the house, or in the consideration of a revision of the rules, is indeed a useful one, in my opinion; and I think that it should be put into effect.
I do not think that anyone wants to consider this matter as one of confidence or nonconfidence. We are all interested in seeing that the business of the house is conducted efficiently, and, as far as possible, expeditiously. If this committee is to be set up to consider revision of the rules, I think that some consideration might be given to going over the citations and rulings in the various volumes we have; because some of them are conflicting; sometimes they lead us into difficulties on procedural matters, and a good deal of the time of the house is occupied in procedural discussion.
I am happy to hear both the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) speak as they have spoken; and I can assure them that I thoroughly agree that

House of Commons
the time has come when a committee might discuss with Mr. Speaker the procedures and rules of the house. When the report is brought into the house, I hope that a better fate will befall it than that which has befallen similar reports in years past.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: I hesitate to attempt to speak today, because I may have difficulty in making myself understood.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are glad you are back.


Solon Earl Low: I feel I should say just a word about the amendment that has been moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). I was on the committee which was set up in 1948 for the purpose of revising the rules of the house, along with the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). We discussed at that time a considerable number of suggestions for streamlining the rules of the house and making it possible for us to get through the business with more dispatch. At that time, however, we did not bring back any recommendations to the house, because it was felt that we had not had enough time to go right into a study of the important things that should be done.
I have given a good deal of thought to the matter since that time, and it seems to me that there are five or six important things that we could do, and because there are these five or six important things that we could do to shorten the time of the session I feel like supporting the amendment that has been moved today.
I shall mention briefly what I do think. My own feeling is that we should give consideration first to some organization for setting a time limit on the major debates. The debate on the speech from the throne and the budget debate could be shortened considerably by agreement, by some form of organization that will indicate in advance the time when the vote will be taken. I understand that is done in Britain, and it has been quite successful. It might foe tried here.
Consideration should be given to cutting down the time limit on speeches. I do think that if we could cut them to say thirty minutes it might induce some people to do a little more terminable thinking. Unfortunately, not all of us have had training in organization, and too many people fail to go straight to the heart of the problem in their thinking and their speaking, with the result that they go round and round, repetition becomes the order, and we do not get to the point where we can terminate anything at all.
I have always heard that it takes at least three hours to prepare carefully a five-minute speech, and that the longer the speech the

shorter the time for preparation. That seems to be the case, all right, and some of the long speeches that we hear in this house would indicate that people had taken very little time to prepare them. If we had had a rule limiting the duration of a speech to thirty minutes we might do a little more preparing and more careful thinking.
I think we could consider too, Mr. Speaker, programming the work of the house for at least two weeks ahead, or possibly something in the nature of that time-ten days to two weeks; this would help the members to know what is coming up so that they could get ready for the debates and be thoroughly prepared. As I have already indicated, thorough preparation would do more to reduce the length of sittings than almost anything else.
Instead of having questions on the orders of the day every day we might consider setting an hour once or twice a week during which members might ask questions of the ministry, and, when that hour is up, go ahead with the regular business of the house whether the questions are finished or not.
Then we might consider a more orderly widespread use of committees to study the estimates. I think we have had quite unusual success in this respect in the external affairs committee. I ask hon. members to note that when these estimates are brought back into the house they will be passed with much more dispatch than almost any estimates that will be brought before us this year, simply because a complete and thorough discussion of them has taken place in the committee. Members of the committee have been perfectly satisfied, or at least they have satisfied themselves, about the proposals for expenditures. They have all the information they want, and when these estimates come back into the house, hon. members will find they will go through much more smoothly and quickly.
These are things that have been in my mind, Mr. Speaker, and I should like to see this committee set up. I should like to see it directed to get to work as soon as possible, with a view to doing the things I have suggested, plus a great many of those the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) have suggested. I support the amendment.


Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: I should like to say a word in connection with this amendment, because, with the members who have spoken, I have been working through the years to try to see if we could not do something toward streamlining the work of the House of Commons. It is not a very easy

job or a simple task. We must approach it with that idea in mind, because to speak of general principles is one thing, and to get down to details and to try to get all hon. members to agree is another. But that should not hinder us from making a very earnest and concentrated effort to see if it cannot be done at this time.
I want only to say this. There are three matters in which many of us have been interested in connection with committee work. One is of course the question of the hours of sitting of the house. I would not like to see the house reduce the number of hours of sitting. If we are to have a change, perhaps we might increase them, but make them more convenient for the members. I should think that sittings from one to seven, which I have suggested for many years, might be adopted by the house. It would be a sensible arrangement. It would increase the hours of sitting, but it would increase the convenience of hon. members immensely. It would leave the evenings open for committee meetings, if that were necessary, and it would not interfere with morning committee meetings.
On the question of the length of speeches, I do not know whether that is as serious an issue as I once believed it was. On the other hand it does seem to me that a thirty-minute limit might readily be put on private members generally without affecting their contribution, or affecting prejudicially the work of parliament itself. At one time I suggested twenty minutes, and I am not so sure that I would not be prepared to support and substantiate that position even at this time, because if hon. members would only try to see what can be done in twenty minutes it might be a very good contribution.
On the other hand, what strikes me forcibly is this. When I came into the house some fifteen years ago we had just $500 million of estimates to consider. That is all we spent. A number of hon. members who were here at that time will recall that I thought that was a scandalous amount of money for the Dominion of Canada to be spending. But you see what has happened in the years since. We have increased that to seven times what it was in 1936, and that has its reflection on the length of the sitting of parliament. Moreover, it has an important bearing upon what we do with respect to trying to fit that immense increase of work into our general day-to-day activities. I believe that those who sit on the committee should consider working out a scheme under which general policy would be discussed and decided in this chamber, in the presence of
80709-252 i
House of Commons
all hon. members; then, the mass of detail should be taken out of the chamber, so far as possible, and placed before committees..
As I said before, it is easy to speak in-, generalities. Nevertheless it is my view that that is one principle which should be followed. If I had any way of doing it I would: tear out the present committee structure, because I think it is antiquated. What was good fifty years ago might not necessarily be good now. I would prefer to see the committee structure changed so that it would: relate more closely to the various fields over which ministers of the crown have jurisdiction. In this way, when the estimates of a certain department were brought forward we could send them to the appropriate committee-and, so far as detail is concerned, have them dealt with there. However, we would never allow matters of policy to leave this chamber.
This procedure I believe would be of great help, because then we would work in the House of Commons in a discussion of only broad policy, the detail to be discussed in committees. Wherever policy arose, it could be brought back to the House of Commons. Not only would this help tremendously in streamlining our work and materially shortening our sessions, but it would not leave such a heavy load upon those hon. members who take an active part in the work of the session. In addition, it has the distinct advantage of utilizing the vast capacity of the backbenchers, the private members. After all,, it is my view that each member should bear his or her fair share of the load of legislation. I realize that it cannot be done on a basis of absolute equality, but we should try to approach that degree of equality so that each member, no matter where he or she may sit, would have a responsibility. I know when I say this that private members are anxious and eager to assume responsibility.
May I conclude by making a suggestion to-the Prime Minister. I know, as I am sure he knows, that these suggestions have a. habit of dragging along, session after session, with nothing being done about them. This time, when we are unanimous in wanting to-do something, let us get the pilot committee started before the end of the present session. I suggest to the Prime Minister that on the first operating day of the fall session, which,, I understand, would be the second day,, unanimous consent should be sought to set up the committee, with the understanding that within two weeks it report to parliament as to the progress it has made. I should think that within three weeks a recommendation could be made to the house. Then, with such a recommendation before us, let us by way of trial and error, by way of

House of Commons
experiment, put into operation for the balance of that session some of those major recommendations made by the committee, so that we may see how they work. If they work well, let us make them permanent. If they do not work well, we can take out those parts which are not found suitable.
I make these suggestions in what I hope has been a constructive way, because no one is more anxious than I am that we make an honest effort to place parliament in a position to handle its business in a modern and efficient manner.


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, as the fifth and only remaining member of the committee which met with your predecessor in 1946, I should like to say a word about the timeliness of the proposal made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). Only last night I was discussing with some of my colleagues a memorandum on this very subject. I believe I am correct when I say that in that memorandum there appeared every one of the suggestions thus far advanced by hon. members of various parties during the course of the discussion this morning.
It must be in the minds of all of us that the difficulty of reforming procedure lies not in the will of the house, not in the will of any party, or in the support we would receive from public opinion; because we realize that we are all of one mind in wishing to do something about the present conditions. Certainly the public would like to see us do something about it. The difficulty, however, is a genuine one, in that we would be changing things which have been in existence for a long time, and which, however badly they worked, still worked; and which, if we changed1 them, would almost certainly run counter to the views or interests, as they see them, of one group or another, or of individuals. The reason for this was made clear by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). If we were to adopt the practice as well as the rules of the parliament at Westminster today hon. members would be astonished at the curtailment of their rights and liberties- because at Westminster they have very few indeed.
I am sure, however, that without going too far we could make some progress. The greatest single thing we could do, without, I am sure, any dissent, would be to arrive at some kind of timetable with respect to major debates. This would enable us to achieve the objective of the leader of the Social Credit party (Mr. Low), that of being able to announce a program at least a week if not weeks in advance. Because if, as they do at Westminster, we could rely upon, having a

debate on the address last six or seven days, and no more, then we could say that on the eighth day we would proceed with a definite item of business. Similarly, if twenty-three days were allocated to the discussion of estimates, as obtains at Westminster, then we could say that we would have two days to discuss external affairs, one day for agriculture, and so on, with the opposition groups indicating their preference as to the time to be taken.
That of course would require rationing, as well as a timetable. It would require acquiescence and agreement. It would also require -and I am sure this will be appreciated-a good deal of sensible and constructive leadership on the part of the house leader, which I believe we have, and a great measure of wisdom on the part of Mr. Speaker, of which there can be no doubt; with this it should be possible to have this constructive and desirable suggestion undertaken with all possible haste and with a real sense of fairness which would enable all of us to do in a better way the important job we are here to do'.


Mr. J. H. Harris (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to place on record my approval of the suggestion made, and I am happy to learn that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the government are taking it into consideration. My endorsement of the proposal is based upon an experience extending over some time in the House of Commons-at least for a year or two, anyway.
It is my opinion, sir, that members of the house should have some other vocations from which they draw their bread and butter, their daily sustenance, rather than having to rely wholly upon their being members of parliament. For this reason I am opposed to two sessions a year; I do not like that idea at all. I prefer to see members of the House of Commons conducting their private business affairs in such a way as to make it unnecessary for them to have to depend upon their membership in the house for a living. I hope that that condition will continue. Do not let us revert to making this an assembly of men and women who live on their indemnities. I hope that the shortening of the session, which is in the back of the minds of all of us in discussing this particular motion, will be such that we shall be able to get through the business of the house with one session in a year instead of two.
Perhaps that may seem unkind to many men and women who are here, but it is the way I feel about it. I hope that hon. members will appreciate that I am just speaking from the bottom of my heart as a private

member. I hope that these changes in the rules and regulations will be such as to allow the members to get back to the private business from which they derive their daily bread and butter.


Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: Mr. Speaker, when this committee is set up I hope that one of its recommendations will be that members can get answers to questions. Going back over the last three years I can think of one question in particular that I have put to cabinet ministers and their assistants, but to which I have received no answer. During the debates in the house in connection with margarine I endeavoured on three or four occasions to obtain details as to the ingredients in a pound of margarine and what they would cost. For the last three years I have continued to ask that question on behalf of the farmers I represent, and I have not yet been able to get that information. If cabinet ministers and their assistants were prepared to answer questions, then we would be able to carry on much more efficiently. Only yesterday I tried to get a cabinet minister to answer an honest question; and I hope that when this committee makes its representations, one of them will be to the effect that we can have questions answered in an intelligent manner.
Amendment (Mr. Drew) agreed to.


Alphonse Fournier: I move that this house do immediately resolve itself into committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Alphonse Fournier: I move that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself again into committee of supply.



FREIGHT RATES


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, before you put the motion there is a matter I wish to raise which I suggest is of extreme importance to most sections of Canada. I am concerned at this time with the apparent delay in implementing the recommendations of the royal commission on transportation, and I should like to point out the bad results which may follow, affecting, as they will, at least eight of the ten provinces.
The report of the royal commission was submitted to the government on February 9. During a discussion in the house on the report on April 5 the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) said that an interdepartmental committee had been set up to work out the amendments which would be presented to
Freight Rates
parliament implementing the main recommendations of the report. On April 24, and again on May 11, I asked the Minister of Transport on the orders of the day whether those amendments would be presented during the present session, and his answer was "I hope so."
On June 4 we had a statement by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) outlining the government's intentions in reference to this report. As I understand it, the bill dealing with the implementation of this report will not be presented to parliament until the fall session. When it is presented to parliament a committee will be set up which will hear representations from interested parties. After that committee has listened to many representations over a long period of time something may be done toward implementing the report.
I want to point out to the house and to the government that while this delay is continuing, the railroads have applied for a five per cent increase and a further fifteen per cent increase in freight rates. In other words, before any action is taken by this parliament to bring about an equalization of freight rates we are likely to be faced with further large horizontal increases in existing freight rates. Since 1948 there have been four separate horizontal increases in freight rates totalling forty-five per cent. If the present applications for two separate increases are agreed to they will result in a horizontal increase since 1948 of some seventy-four per cent. In other words, the questions which the royal commission was to solve are likely to be further aggravated.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the hon.
member is now discussing an application which is before the board of transport commissioners. That is a court of record and it has been ruled in the house on previous occasions that matters before the board of transport commissioners cannot be discussed in the house.


Hazen Robert Argue: I realize that, Mr. Speaker,
and I shall bow to your ruling. I referred to what was before the board of transport commissioners only to point out the great necessity of this government doing something soon toward implementing the recommendations of the royal commission on transportation.
There is another matter about which I wish to protest, and this is not the subject of an application to the board of transport commissioners. It is that the general inquiry into freight rates has once again been postponed. This general inquiry was first initiated as a result of an order in council passed by the


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Just before the house rose at noon, the hon. member for Assini-boia (Mr. Argue) moved an amendment which reads as follows:
That all the words after the word "that" to the end of the question be struck out and that the following words be substituted therefor:
"in the opinion of this house no further increases in freight rates should become effective prior to consideration by parliament of the government's proposed legislation arising out of the report of the royal commission on transportation."
When the hon. member for Assiniboia was speaking I referred to the fact that an application for an increase in freight rates was pending before the board of transport commissioners, and I ruled that the subject could not be discussed in this house while an application was before the board.


Major James William Coldwell: May I just say a word, Mr. Speaker, before you make a definite ruling? If you will read the amendment carefully, as I have no doubt you have, you will note that it reads in part: "in the opinion of this house no further increases in freight rates should become effective prior to consideration by parliament of the government's proposed legislation arising out of the report of the royal commission on transportation."
It does not refer to any application now before the board, but merely anticipates that applications may be placed before the board, not only the one which the newspapers say is now before the board but others, before parliament has had an opportunity of considering the report of the royal commission on transportation.
The governor general in council has the power, under the Railway Act, to oppose the coming into effect of any recommendation of the board. What we have in mind is that since we know, from what the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier), the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and others on the government benches have said, that legislation is to be introduced into this parliament soon, probably at the special session in the autumn, we ask, not that the board of transport commissioners shall not make a recommendation but that, if the board does make a recommendation on any application that may be before the board, such decision shall not
Freight Rates
become effective until parliament has had an opportunity of studying the legislation which the government proposes to bring down. We hope this legislation will remove some of the discrimination that is now implicit in any increase in rates that may be permitted because of an application by the railways.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the manner in which this amendment is worded does not refer to any specific application before the board of railway commissioners but is general in its character, and simply requests that the government do not permit any increases to become effective-the government having the power to prevent that-until such time as parliament has an opportunity of considering the proposed legislation which will arise out of the report of the royal commission on transportation.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: May I be allowed to speak to the point? The leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell) is simply explaining the effect of the amendment, which to my mind is clearly out of order. The explanation which he has made of it does not at all strengthen the legality of the amendment. My reason for saying that is twofold. First, I have in my hand an application made by the Railway Association of Canada, dated December 21, 1950, for an increase in freight rates of something in the neighbourhood of five per cent. That application was heard but the decision has not yet been rendered. Therefore, this application is still pending. I have before me also an additional application made to the board on April 23, 1951, for an increase in freight rates dependent upon the forty-hour week which is to become effective soon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is already in effect.


Lionel Chevrier: That is right, it became effective on June 1. This matter is now squarely before the board of transport commissioners, and I believe the hearings were begun today. There can be no doubt but that these two applications are sub judice and should not be discussed.
This amendment reads as follows:
"in the opinion of this house no further increases in freight rates should become effective prior to consideration by parliament of the government's proposed legislation arising out of the report of the royal commission on transportation."
These two applications are requests for further increases. The leader of the C.C.F. party says "Oh well, that is not before the board and all we want is to prohibit the effective date of the decision until after parliament has dealt with the recommendations of the royal commission". That is exactly the point. It is unconstitutional because it is an interference with the rights

Freight Rates
of a court of record. My hon. friends might just as well say that a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada should not be made effective because of amendments which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) wishes to introduce. I believe that the house would agree that would be entirely out of order. The board of transport commissioners is a court of record. If we were to adopt this amendment, we would be interfering with the right of the board of transport commissioners to make increases effective on a certain date. As a matter of fact, the board might decide against the increase altogether, and this motion would be superfluous.
I,	therefore, hold to the practice which has always been approved, that matters which are sub judice should not be discussed. I submit with deference that this amendment is entirely out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) has had something to say about the effect of this amendment being to interfere with the right of the board of transport commissioners to put into effect any change in rates that might be decided upon. In reply, may I say that section 52 of the Railway Act gives to the governor in council the undoubted right to interfere along those lines. What my colleague the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) is asking in this amendment is that parliament give a directive not to the board of transport commissioners but to the government, bearing in mind the authority that the governor in council has under section 52 of the Railway Act. I submit that the point of distinction that is to be made is that the amendment as worded is not directed toward the board of transport commissioners in any way. It is not an amendment which says that the board of transport commissioners should not approve an application. It is rather an amendment which expresses an opinion of this house as to what the government should do.
May I also draw to Your Honour's attention the fact that back four or five years ago when there was before the board of transport commissioners an application for one of these increases-I believe it was the 22 per cent increase-an attempt was made in this house to discuss the question. The ruling of that day was that that specific application for a 22 per cent increase could not be discussed; but hon. members-and I recall in particular Mr. Walter Tucker among others who were here at the time, as well as members on this side of the house-were permitted to discuss the general question as to whether or not there should be any increase in freight rates. The hon. member for

Assiniboia, in drafting his amendment, has clearly stayed away from the specific application that is now before the board of transport commissioners. In fact, when he says "no further increases" he is referring to some that might be made later and is simply asking that this parliament express its opinion to the government.
The other point I should like to make is this, Mr. Speaker. Surely there should be some way in which parliament, the highest court of this land, can discuss a matter as important as that of railway freight rates. Yet, as things have been going, applications to the board of transport commissioners for increases in freight rates are perennial. The railways are always over there before the board. The result is that the strict application of the rule, as has been suggested, would mean that parliament is practically precluded from discussing this important matter. I submit that that fact must be taken into consideration. I agree that parliament is confronted with the obligation not to discuss any application that is there. But I do think that parliament should be able to discuss in general terms the question of whether or not there should be any increases in freight rates.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that what this amendment is doing is not to express any opinion on what the board of transport commissioners is doing or is not doing. What the opinion of this parliament as to what this amendment seeks to do is to express the government should do; and it asks that the government should not allow any increase to become effective prior to the time that parliament considers legislation arising out of the report of the Turgeon commission. I believe the amendment is in order.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I think that the
point that is raised by this proposed amendment does not produce the result that is suggested by the hon. member who has just spoken. It is all very well to say that this is simply an instruction to the government; but the fact is that the hon. member has indicated that the purpose of the motion is to express the view that a certain decision shall be reached by this house. This parliament, in its collective judgment, has set up a board of transport commissioners. That board of transport commissioners is set up for the purpose of determining freight rates and other matters of that kind. I have contended in the past, and shall contend at the time that this subject is before the house, that what we want is a more flexible and a more continuously-operating board of transport commissioners. Certainly I would very much regret to see any practice develop

which had the effect of slowing down rather than expediting the proceedings of the board of transport commissioners. We may or may not agree with them, but that is the vehicle we have provided to deal with a matter of this kind; and I do not think that parliament should provide what actually amounts to an alternative method. For that reason I shall oppose the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: The purpose of the amendment has been clearly placed before the house by the hon. members who have spoken. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) has explained that the purpose of the amendment is to present the view of parliament to the government in a general way, and not referring specifically to any application which is before the board of transport commissioners. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) has pointed out that there is an application pending before the board of transport commissioners and that, in his opinion, this amendment must in some way refer to that application. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has said that this amendment does not directly relate to the present application before the board but that it refers to increases which may from time to time be approved by the board. I would think that if it refers to increases from time to time, it would necessarily include the present application for increase. It is therefore difficult for me to see how the present application for an increase can be divorced from the words of the amendment.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has stated that he thinks there should be some method whereby parliament can discuss freight rates and other matters when they are before the board. That may or may not be advisable. A number of members may or may not agree with him. That matter, however, is not one which the Speaker can decide. That is a matter which parliament must decide if it feels inclined to do so. There is a citation in May's Parliamentary Practice, fourteenth edition, at page 430, which readts as follows:
Matters awaiting the adjudication of a court of law should not be brought forward in debate.
Then in Beauchesne's third edition, citation 246 (c), it is stated:
... it has been sanctioned by usage both in England and in Canada, that a member while speaking, must not:
(c) refer to any matter on which a judicial decision is pending.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) has stated that a decision on freight rates is pending before the board of transport 80709-253
Freight Rates
commissioners. He has certain views regarding the functions and powers of the board; but again that is a matter which parliament must decide. He has, however, expressed the opinion that the matter of freight rates is before the board and I think he would go so far as to say that the application cannot be separated entirely from the amendment.
I realize the importance of this matter and I sympathize with hon. members who would like to discuss this motion with respect to freight rates at this time. However, I am bound by the rules of parliament. It has been held that any matters before the board for discussion are sub judice, and cannot be debated in this house until a decision has been reached. I refer hon. members to the Journals of the Canadian House of Commons of 1923 at page 268, and Hansard of March 5, 1947, at pages 1051 and 1052. May I also refer to a ruling which I made when I had the honour of being Deputy Speaker of this house. In fact that is the reference of March 5, 1947. At that time I ruled "that any matter which is before the board for decision is a judicial proceeding within the meaning of the ruling which prohibits debating in this house matters which are sub judice. It is thus unnecessary for me to consider whether the process by which the board will reach its decision is administrative, quasi-judicial or otherwise. This question would be of vital importance only if the tribunal making the decision had not been designated a court of law by parliament".
I realize that the amendment which is now before the house is in general terms. Nevertheless I cannot see how the amendment could be adopted without referring to the application for an increase in freight rates which is at present before the board. In my opinion, this amendment, if carried, would inevitably have an effect upon the present adjudication. This is one of the reasons why the rule has been put into effect. In view of the foregoing, I can only conclude that the present amendment is out of order in that it would be bound to affect the adjudication by a body designated by parliament as a court of record in an issue which is now pending before it, which is contrary to the rule which prohibits discussion of any issue which is sub j udice.
Is the house ready for the question?



HARRY ALLEN READ

Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: I rise to voice a grievance. My grievance has to do with a southern Alberta boy who entered His Majesty's armed forces of Canada during world war II. The name of this boy is Harry

Harry Allen Read
Allen Read. He joined the R.C.A.F. as R-77867 and served his country well, rising in the ranks to become a warrant officer. He was chosen to form a part of the force making the very important attack upon Peenemunde on the night of August 17, 1943, an attack the success of which is believed by many to have changed the whole course of world war II.
Warrant Officer Read at present resides at 66 west 17th avenue, Vancouver, British Columbia.
I am informed by trustworthy authority that W/O Read comes of one of the best of families in Medicine Hat, Alberta. The family is a very wholesome, reliable one, and made their way by hard honest effort. They have never sought to get something for nothing, since they have been known in the area where they reside. The father was a railroader, and remained such until he was honourably retired. A sister won distinction as a trained nurse. Allen was a good, reliable boy and was successful in school. He had a splendid military record.
Before proceeding with this case may I hasten to state that the treatment of veterans generally at the close of world war II has been, in my opinion, incomparably superior to anything accorded the veterans of world war I. Whenever I have had any dealing with officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs I have found them interested, sympathetic, efficient and effective, manifesting diligence in following up to see that veterans are established with the best possible chance of making good.
The present Minister of Veterans Affairs will no doubt desire to improve conditions with sincerity of purpose, as did his immediate predecessor in office. The present minister will, I know, desire to eliminate, as far as may be, all possibility of miscarriage of justice to Canada's veterans. It is with the object of strengthening his hand in all his efforts to combat any forces or influences moving to curtail benefits to veterans, that I bring to the minister's attention the case of W/O Read.
My grievance is, that W/O H. A. Read appears to have been made the victim of a most regrettable miscarriage of justice involving (1) permanent injury to health and strength, with serious physical deformity; (2) constant and often severe pain; (3) gross indignities; and (4) mental torture; and that, moreover, it appears that the government has thus far neglected to provide W/O Read with financial compensation appropriate to the bare necessities of the situation.

I desire to quote from an article appearing in the Medicine Hat Daily News of August 8, 1944. The article is entitled "Warrant Officer Allen Read portrays panorama of Sweden." I quote two short passages:
. . . Warrant Officer Allen Read, who returned to his home Sunday after being interned for six and a half months in that country.
W.O. Read's plane was brought down over southern Sweden and the crew was forced to bail out by parachute, following which they were interned at Falun, Sweden.
And again:
W.O. Read will spend one month's furlough here before returning to Ottawa where he will receive medical attention for a spine injury received when he came down. He hopes to return to active service.
I cite these two quotations as an indication of the general soundness of the position which I feel called upon to take with respect to the treatment of Warrant Officer Read.
I now desire to read an excerpt from a letter from Mr. A. L. Smith, the former member for Calgary West, whom we all remember. This letter was written on March 1, 1951. It is written to Harry Read. I quote the following excerpt:
As far as I am concerned you have been treated abominably and without your consent I am immediately sending this letter to Mr. John Blackmore, M.P. for Lethbridge. I do this because I think his son was with you in the ill-fated expedition and has since been killed, and Blackmore and I discussed your problem on numerous occasions.
The letter is signed by A. L. Smith. It will help to show that my complaint is not without at least considerable justification.
I now desire to read a letter from Mr. A. L. Smith to myself, dated March 1, 1951: John Blackmore, Esq., M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario.
My dear John:
I am enclosing herewith letters from this young chap Read, whose case I discussed with you on more than one occasion. I really do think this is a case where the D.V.A. should take some special action.
However, I am leaving the matter in your hands, as you will see by the copy of letter that I have written to young Read.
Yours truly,
A. L. Smith
To set the record straight, it may be wise to give a brief explanation of the reference to my own son. My son, Winston W. Black-more, referred to in the letter, piloted a bomber in the raid on Peenemunde, Germany, in which raid W/O Read also piloted a bomber, next to that of my son. My son gave his life in the course of the attack on Peenemunde.
It is reported to me, reliably, I believe, that W/O H. A. Read, R-77867, while flying over Sweden, bailed out at approximately

1,500 feet and, owing to the fact that the outer covering of his parachute was caught up in the shroud lines, he could not control his direction of landing, and therefore hit going backwards and rolled over four or five times.
I shall now ask the first of a series of questions:
1.	What evidence can the government adduce to disprove the statements in this report?
It is reliably reported to me that after landing, W/O Read walked about four miles, with a painful leg injury, which was treated by a doctor in the small town to which he was taken, and that in full view of some one hundred curiosity seekers his bomb aimer had to assist him to rise, to sit down and to walk, and that his bomb aimer continued to help him around for a few days, after which he managed on his own. My second question is:
2. What evidence can the government adduce to disprove the statements in this report?
Again, it is reported to me, reliably, I believe, that up to March 5, 1951, never in the years before the war or since, had W/O Read been hospitalized or treated by any doctor for a fracture of any kind, or a spinal injury of any sort. *
3. What evidence can the government adduce to dispute the statement in this report?
The three statements I have made thus far appear to constitute a serious arraignment of the government.	.
Again, it is reported to me, reliably, I believe, that W/O Read was invalided home from overseas.
4.	Is this true?
5.	If so, upon whose recommendation was the decision made to invalid W/O Read home?
6.	And if so, upon whose diagnosis was the recommendation made?
7.	And upon what evidence was based the diagnosis of W/O Read's case that resulted in the said recommendation?
May I draw to the attention of the house the fact that evidently this airman was considered unfit for service. He was invalided home. There is no evidence whatsoever that he received any effective treatment for the maladies or injuries that caused his being invalided home. If the government can produce evidence to the contrary, it would be well for it to do so. Otherwise it looks to me 80709-253J
Harry Allen Read
as though someone in the government who had to do with W/O Read has gravely offended this nation.
It is further reported to me, reliably, I believe, that after being invalided home W/O Read had to wait four months in England before there was space available on a ship, and then a further four months while awaiting posting for discharge at Ottawa, all this time suffering from a painful neck condition, and without any kind of treatment.
8.	What evidence can the government adduce to disprove the statements in this report?
9.	If the statements referred to in question 8 are true, who made the decisions upon which such apparent gross neglect was based?
10.	Upon what principles of government policy were made those decisions referred to in question 9?
11.	On what date did W/O Read first report for hospitalization after his discharge?
12.	To what agency of the Department of Veterans Affairs?
13.	Who was the doctor to whom W/O Read was turned over for diagnosis?
13(a). Who turned him over?
14.	Was that doctor a psychiatrist?
15.	If so, why should a man having had a physical injury be turned over to a psychiatrist?
Again, it is reported to me that on that occasion, as on previous occasions, no X-ray was taken of W/O Read's spine-which fact, if substantiated, is most astonishing.
16.	Can the government adduce evidence to show that the statement in this report is untrue?
17.	If not, how does the government explain such apparent callous neglect of ordinary common-sense precautions in dealing with a case such as that of W/O Read, who had suffered a physical injury while landing in a parachute after jumping from an aircraft fifteen hundred feet from the ground?
It is reported to me that in 1947, in Regina, W/O Read, faced with the task of caring for himself in his injured condition, as well as his wife and two little children, approached the Department of Veterans Affairs and begged for care and treatment, and some kind of assistance, but met with absolute refusal.
18.	What evidence can the government adduce to disprove the statements contained in this report?
It is reported that W/O Read approached the Department of Veterans Affairs for treatment on at least three occasions in Regina, but was refused, under humiliating circumstances.

Harry Allen Read
19.	What evidence can the government adduce to disprove the statements in this report?
It is reported that as late as April 15, 1951 -almost seven years after his injury- although W/O Read had several weeks previously gone up to Shaughnessy hospital at Vancouver, seeking admission and treatment for his neck and back, he had been refused admittance by a certain doctor, although outpatient psychiatric treatment was available to him. If there is any truth in that report, then every member must realize that it is an absolutely astonishing situation. Here is a man afflicted with a ^physical injury who approaches a hospital, 'desiring to be admitted to treatment for that physical injury, and a psychiatrist has authority to refuse him admission to the hospital, but clears the way to give him psychiatric treatment, as an outpatient!
20.	What evidence can the government adduce to disprove these statements?
It is reported to me that after many years of almost heartbreaking neglect W/O Read was finally, on May 17, 1951, admitted to Shaughnessy hospital for a spinal fusion operation, which the doctors decided to delay for some time to see if some physiotherapy might relieve the back pain.
Here is a man who has been abused for seven years and who has finally been admitted to a hospital for a spinal fusion which it would seem could have become necessary only through a serious physical injury to the spine, and which men all the way back through nearly seven years had refused to recognize, and stubbornly refused to conduct an examination of, which quite possibly would have disclosed the difficulty.
21.	Does the government deny this report?
It is reported to me that, even at the late
date of May 17, 1951, when W/O Read was finally admitted to Shaughnessy, he was classed as a 6A patient, thereby being denied allowances for his wife and children.
22.	Does the government question the truthfulness of this report?
23.	If not upon what grounds does the government attempt to justify this procedure?
It is reported to me that even as late as June 7, 1951, although W/O Read had by that time been transferred to the George Derby health and occupational centre, New Westminster, B.C., and was receiving something like fitting treatment, there had occurred no reclassification of this veteran patient to enable his wife and children to receive financial support.
24.	Does the government deny all this?
[Mr. Blackmore.l
Once more, how does the government justify such delay in providing this tortured veteran with at least some small measure of peace of mind?
This is the first reference I have made in this house to H. A. Read. I may say that I have made attempts to obtain redress for this young man, but thus far those attempts have not been rewarded with adequate success.
I am bringing up this matter at the present time so as to give the Minister of Veterans Affairs time in which to probe into this serious case of Warrant Officer Read. I shall eagerly await his answers.



VETERANS AFFAIRS HOSPITAL AT SASKATOON AIRPORT

Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: 

FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES OF FRUIT FARMERS OF OKANAGAN VALLEY

Mr. O. L. Jones (Yale):: Mr. Speaker, I too should like to bring a grievance before the house, and I do so on behalf of the fruit farmers of the Okanagan valley. The grievance has to do with the difficulties they are having at the present time in financing,


and particularly in raising mortgages or loans on their farms. I refer especially to the farmers who suffered heavy losses because of the frost a year and a half ago. Naturally these people, having lost a good deal of their assets, are not very attractive to the orthodox organizations for making capital loans, especially to the banks. I well remember that a short time ago the banks were advertising very widely throughout the dominion, particularly in our own province, to this effect: Visit your friendly banker; call on your friendly banker for assistance, aid or advice; lending money is our business; bring your problems to your banker; and so on. What they were trying to emphasize was: This is your bank; we are here to help you along.
I feel that the public were beginning to fall for that type of advertising and were really beginning to think that the bankers were nice friendly people. I feel that this policy brought a great deal of progress and prosperity to our dominion. The homes of the people, farms and farm buildings were improved. New equipment was purchased, and both town and rural areas showed the benefits of the new prosperity brought about through ability to borrow from the banks. Young people got married with the hope and faith that they had a friendly bank behind them for support. Farmers also felt that they had the added security of being able to deal not only with the banks but with the farm loan board which also showed a great deal of friendliness at that time. The board was even more generous than the banks, and it was meant to be. I feel its object is to build up our farm economy by financial assistance.
All avenues of capital loans functioned well in the few years of prosperity since the war, and to a certain extent during the war. To some extent the use of capital loans obtained through the farm loan board and the banks was the cause of our prosperity, but for sheer inconsistency the laws governing the granting of capital loans are a puzzle to me. Immediately people are really in need of financial help as they are today, of the friendly banker or a benevolent farm loan board, these very people draw right back into their shells and place a most unfriendly sign at the entrance, borrowers not wanted.
According to information I have just received from a very reliable source in my riding, loans are ten times more difficult to obtain now than they were a year ago. The house is fully aware of the disaster that befell the fruit growers of the Okanagan valley a year and a half ago as a result of frost damage causing losses running into millions of dollars. Some farmers were placed in the unhappy position of not being able to win even a smile from the friendly

banker, but they thought that surely they had a friend in the farm loan board.
The federal government had already refused direct financial assistance to rehabilitate these unfortunate victims of what to my mind was an act of nature beyond their control. I feel that individuals in our valley suffered as much as if not more than individuals suffered in other disasters of recent times, for example, the Fraser valley, Rimouski, Winnipeg, Cabano, and so on. In these latter cases the government did generously assist, but in the case of the tree fruit growers there was no assistance forthcoming from the federal government. However, these farmers were encouraged to believe, and the information they received led them to believe, that government agencies such as the farm loan board would soften the blow by relaxing their usual credit requirements somewhat. Even that hope is now dashed to the ground. My information is that the farm loan board is turning down applications for loans one after the other every week.
There may be cases where such action is warranted, but there are many good hardworking farmers who are urgently in need of money and cannot obtain it from the farm loan board. I am not discussing the banks because that is hopeless. I would ask the government to change its policy and instruct its agents in that area to make generous loans based on the character and the ability of the applicant rather than on his assets. I have told you already that they have no assets. They have not the asset requirements for a loan, and I have already explained why. The people there are seeking loans to reestablish themselves. The people seeking these loans are the finest types of citizens to be found anywhere in Canada. They will meet their obligations, as they have always met them in the past. Mr. Speaker, I appeal to the government, through you, to act at once by instructing the farm loan board to grant loans to these people on the basis of character and ability, in order to rehabilitate men of known skill and experience. These men have the skill of twenty or thirty years in the growing of fruit, and now they have no trees on which to grow fruit. I feel that rather than waste the money to establish newcomers from central Europe, who in many cases get fed up with the land and go into the larger towns, the government should lend money to these needy people. These peotple want to stay on the land, and the government should instruct the farm loan board to consider the application of these men on a different basis from that of the ordinary applicant for a farm loan. I feel sure that if the government will send out instructions to reconsider the applications of those turned
Supply-Fisheries
down, they will re-establish a fine bunch of farmers on some of the finest farms in Canada.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

[Stage Direction]
56. Departmental administration, $208,564.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
140. Departmental administration, $281,298.
Mr. Higgins:: Mr. Chairman, when we adjourned last evening I was discussing the subject of the Newfoundland seal fishery and what had happened during the past season, owing to a number of foreign ships entirely disregarding the sealing laws. A cruel slaughter had taken place, and it was in that connection that I closed my remarks. It is quite evident, Mr. Chairman, that the whole sealing industry is being gravely imperilled by what took place last year, and what may very well take place again in the years to come. It is for that reason that I hope the commission that has been set up, the northwest Atlantic fisheries conservation commission, discussed this topic at their last meeting in Washington a short time ago. The Canadian representatives on that commission are excellent men. I believe they are the deputy minister, Mr. Bates, Mr. Gushue of the Newfoundland fisheries board, and the past president of the fisheries advisory board, Mr. J. H. McKichan. I do hope that they have taken this matter in hand. The Norwegian representatives were present at the meeting, and I hope they discussed it, Mr. Chairman, because unless there has been some international agreement on this matter it appears to me as though Canada will have to step in quite strongly, otherwise not only are we going to have that happen again but we shall also have foreign trawlers coming in to the Grand Banks and imperilling the lives of Canadian trawler operators. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I do say that if nothing has been done in the way of an international agreement, Canada should step in and take control of the waters in which our cod fishery and seal fishery are conducted. I trust the minister will refer to that when he speaks.
There is another angle on this fisheries problem to which I referred before on a couple of occasions, and that is the question of salmon conservation. When I refer to salmon conservation, I am referring to the Atlantic salmon and not the Pacific. In that connection, the annual report of the fisheries research board of Canada for 1949 at page 41, appendix II, has this to say under the heading

Supply-Fisheries
"Fish (Salmon) Management, by A. G. Huntsman". He is referring to the low catches of salmon in particular in Shubenacadie lake in Nova Scotia. This is what he says:
Apart from this, the stock of fish may be low, since natural stocks of salmon in southern waters both in Europe and North America have been lower during the past decade than ever before known.
That again is a very serious matter. I appreciate that the fisheries board have been taking a number of steps by way of distributing young salmon, but I believe they have to go further to the root of this matter and try to take care of it in a natural way. The suggestion I made before-I do not know whether the minister approved of it, but I am going to make it again-is in this form. I suggest that he take a river, particularly a river such as the Gander river in Newfoundland, and I suggest it for two or three reasons. It is a large river and covers a large stock of salmon. It is intensively fished by sportsmen and tourists. The approaches to that river are quite narrow, and very easily overseen. There probably would be about twenty fishermen fishing at the approaches to the river-I mean commercial fishermen. They take a very large amount of salmon. I feel, Mr. Chairman, it would be much cheaper for the department to subsidize these fishermen not to catch fish than it would be to operate a fish hatchery. It would be well worth the experiment for a year or two at the very most. Over three or four years you may have to pay a man the average value of his salmon catch. It might be about $400 per person per year, but I doubt very much whether it would go beyond that. The hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay would be in a better position to describe the actual amount than I am, but I believe that would be the figure. If we say there are twenty of those fishermen at $400 each, that would be a very small amount indeed to pay for an experiment of this type. I would heartily recommend it to the minister for his serious consideration.
Another angle in connection with salmon conservation results is dealt with in the report from which I previously quoted at page 42. Mr. Huntsman is referring to young salmon and he says:
It may be possible to increase the numbers of native smolt-
As the minister knows and I imagine hon. members know the "smolt" is a young salmon, the next degree to a parr.
-that descend from the streams, by largely eliminating the eels that prey extensively on the parr in the streams. It is now concluded that there is no likelihood of selling the eels to offset part of the cost of capture.

Consequently, simple and cheap methods of catching and using them on the spot to enrich the comparatively barren streams are being sought. This is to convert the parr's enemy into fertilizer to increase its food.
I think that is a suggestion that is well worthy of consideration because, as the minister and his associates well know, one of the greatest enemies that the salmon has is this particular type of eel that attacks not only the mature salmon itself but the young parr and the young smolt in great numbers indeed. If some scheme could be worked out whereby these eels can be caught and made into fertilizer to enrich the streams, I think that would be a wonderful way indeed to handle the problem.
I have only one more general observation to make before I can get down to some problems that I want to put to the minister. As he himself outlined some time ago on three or four occasions, I believe, Canadians eat annually approximately ten pounds of fish per person as compared with a per capita consumption of 45 pounds annually by Europeans. That, Mr. Chairman, is just about the ratio in which fisheries problems rate with the government of this country as compared, we will say, with those of agriculture.
The fishing industry is the oldest North American industry, but the past century has shown a marked contrast in the development of fisheries and the development of agriculture in this country. As we all appreciate, agriculture has a huge national effort behind it. All we have to do is to look at the expenditures of the Department of Agriculture, and these various services-the experimental farms and the illustration stations-and we can see the truth of that statement borne out. But when we look at the fisheries, what do we find? It is the neglected stepchild of the government, unwanted and unloved. I will concede, of course, in all honesty and sincerity, that under the present minister and his department great steps indeed have been made with regard to the outlook for the fisheries and in the interest that is being shown in them by members of this parliament. Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, the fisheries are not receiving the treatment they should receive from this dominion. As I say, I appreciate the work the minister and his associates have done but it seems to me that it is going to be a long haul before the fisheries are put in their proper position.
One of the great problems of the industry is one that the minister has been stressing on more than one occasion, namely the problem of conservation. I have already referred

to it briefly, and I referred to the international northwest Atlantic fisheries conservation convention, and the establishment of the international commission. I understand that at the next meeting it is going to make a decision, one way or the other, that either Halifax or St. John's, Newfoundland, will be the established headquarters of the commission. I do not want to miss the chance to put in a plug for St. John's. In this case I can do it in all honesty. Of the two places, I think that St. John's would be the more suitable. I do not know what the Nova Scotia members will say about that.
In that organization I understand that Canada, Denmark, Iceland, the United Kingdom, the United States and Portugal are at present members and that France, Italy, Norway and Spain have not yet signified their agreement to ratify the Atlantic fisheries conservation convention. That is the last information I have, but the minister probably has further information in that connection. As I see it, the importance of that commission, particularly in reference to the fisheries that we usually associate with the Grand Banks of Newfoundland, is indeed great; because the indications are that of recent years there is a serious depletion taking place on those banks. In that connection, I only recently read an editorial in the Daily News, a small part of which I am going to read, which strikes me as most important. Complaint was made of the great damage done to the fisheries by the wastage of young fish being caught on the Grand Banks and not being made use of. All these nations whose representatives are taking the fish are, as I say, or hope to be, members of this convention. This is part of the editorial from the Daily News of April 26:
Reports from the Grand Banks of wasteful fishing methods have assumed serious proportions and indicate the urgency of bringing about sensible regulation as a means of conservation. The wastage of young fish taken in trawls has been described as little short of appalling and its continuation is bound to exercise harmful effects upon the' resources of the Newfoundland banks.
The minister is well aware of the situation. He saw what fishing did on the American banks. He saw the tremendous damage that has been done to those banks by overfishing. I believe that, to all intents and purposes, they are almost useless as compared with their value in the past. Certainly we do not want to have that take place with regard to the Newfoundland Grand Banks which are so important to the economy in the whole of Canada in the matter of fisheries.
The last time that I was speaking on this matter, I believe that I referred to what
Supply-Fisheries
somebody had written about the Grand Banks, to the effect that they were like a meeting of the United Nations in the daytime, there were flags of so many various types. The latest description comes only the other day. One of the skippers makes this comment. So great is the congestion on the fishing grounds that one Newfoundland dragger skipper recently had compared the banks at night to a well-lighted Christmas tree. It is therefore easy to see why measures must be taken, and taken quickly, if the heritage that we know as the Grand Banks of Newfoundland is going to be successfully preserved.
The other part of the editorial to which I referred is also important. In the editorial in the Daily News of April 26, with respect to the food for fish, it is stated:
It is clear that the supply of animal proteins is failing to keep pace with demand and that fish will have to be consumed in far greater quantities in the future. But the supply of fish can also fall much below the demand if the principal ocean reserves are not carefully conserved and ratification of the Atlantic convention by all the countries concerned is the only common-sense and efficient way in which this can be achieved.
That is all I wish to say on the general subject itself. I now want to go into a few particular matters with the minister, in the hope that he may see his way clear to comment on them in passing. He made a broadcast on October 27 of last year over the C.B.C. station in Newfoundland, in which he made some pertinent comments on the fisheries which I want to draw to his attention and concerning which I want to ask him some questions. At that time the announcement had been made of price support for Labrador fish. This is what the minister said:
We're arranging a plan to let the salt codfish association and NAFEL take in the fish from the fishermen right away. The government, through the prices support board, is giving a guarantee to the trade that will allow them to give to fishermen an initial payment of $7 per quintal on the genuine Labrador fish of either semi-dry or ordinary cure. Mark you, I want to stress that this is an initial payment. The merchants will take in this fish, will process and pack it for market at cost. They are anxious to help solve the problem and they have agreed to handle the fish at no profit to themselves.
Rightly or wrongly, that was understood to mean what the minister at that time said, namely, that there would be no profit of any kind to the merchants taking in that fish. I agree, Mr. Chairman, that that was contrary to the way business has to be done and certainly contrary to what most people expect, but at all events that is what the minister said. In an order for return to a question of mine which was tabled the other day, the department does give an entirely

Supply-Fisheries
different picture. The price paid for handling costs of these $7 a quintal fish is given. The question was:
What were the arrangements made with exporters Dr others for handling the fish produced by the ishermen?
The answer was as follows:
Merchants
The following costs, f.a.s. bulk per quintal, for the handling of the fish including labour, overhead, cartage, wharfage and shrinkage, by areas, were allowed: St. John's $2.43; Bonavista $2.07; Conception Bay $2.32; North of Cape Bonavista $1.92.
It might be simpler to put the small table on Hansard, as it is, because the minister has it already, if there is no objection.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gordon Francis Higgins: That is all right so far as Labrador is concerned. When the minister is replying perhaps he will tell me when it is proposed to make this extra payment to which he refers in his statement. I take it the initial payment is $7. Are the Labrador fishermen to be paid any more? That dealt with the Labrador fish. In the same broadcast the minister referred to the shore fish and he said this:
I'll turn now to the shore fish. Substantial sales have already been made by the exporters. There is, however, a higher production in the world at large, and export prices will be down somewhat this year. Our Department of Trade and Commerce is making every effort to keep markets open for our salted fish and it is looking forward to the removal of some of the obstacles that now stand in the way. In the case of shore fish, the prospects are much brighter than for Labrador, and we expect the fishermen to move this fish into the exporters' hands without delay. We will also expect merchants around the coast to give the fishermen a satisfactory price.


The Chairman:: Am I to understand that the hon. member has the consent of the committee to have the documents printed in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Mayhew:: The statement to which the hon. member is referring is already on Hansard of May 21.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: It is already on Hansard.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I am not objecting to its being put on, but I point out that it is already on Hansard of May 21.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I do not think it is on Hansard. It was an order for return. It did not actually appear on Hansard.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Agreed.


Gordon Francis Higgins: The table follows:
St. John's	Outports
$ per qtl.	$ per qtl.
Semi-dry to hard dry	 2 02	1-73
Ordinary cure to semi-dry ____ 1-75	1-49
Ordinary cure to hard dry .... 2-92	2-63
Ordinary cure to 40 per cent__	2-20	1-91Semi-dry to 40 per cent	
1-46	117
I now continue with the minister's broadcast:
We would ask the fishermen to move the fish under our assurance that the prices support board will review the shore fish situation as the season advances. Should it happen that the fall in price to fishermen has been so great as to merit support action, the board would recommend to government that a deficiency payment be made on shore fish. I am confident that, with this assurance, the fishermen and the salt codfish association will be able to arrange a price that will allow the fisherman to move his fish into the exporters' hands.
I do not believe I have to argue with the minister on that, because I believe that statement means what it says; because in answer to the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine at page 2158 of Hansard the following appears:


Mr. Charles Cannon (Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. In his statement to the house yesterday the minister said:
It is only under special conditions that government action under the support act should be contemplated. There is, in our opinion, no need for such special action at this time.
Will the minister tell the house whether this statement applies only to the 1951 catch or also to the 1950 catch?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The hon. member gave me notice of the question. I think it is quite apparent from the statement I made that I was referring to the 1951 catch. We have already given support to the 1950 catch in buying Labrador codfish. We have also agreed to make an investigation of returns to fishermen on shore fish for 1950. That investigation is now proceeding, and it will probably be July before it is finished. We are not going back on anything that we have promised to do. In my statement I was referring to the 1951 season.
Therefore I am going on the assumption that the minister is reviewing the deficiency in payments received by fishermen last year for their fish, and that some time next month the amount they should have received will be made up by the federal government. That I take it is what the guarantee means.
In connection with the fishermen not making their money last year, the minister has announced very little carry-over of last year's fish and suggests that they are starting off with a pretty good year in sight. That I agree with for the reason that the fish is sold.
I shall read now from a speech of the president of the Newfoundland salt codfish association, delivered on February 13, 1951. One

extract from this speech is quite explanatory of what happened. This is Mr. H. V. Earle speaking:
In the salt trade we can truthfully say that the position at this time is a great deal improved over what it was nine or ten months ago when we were faced with a very serious carry-over of fish of 1949 production. When some of us were in Ottawa a little later than this time last year, at the invitation of the federal government, discussing the problems facing the industry then, I can safely say that most of us thought the situation was desperate. Today, thanks to the splendid work of NAFEL, the position is very much better and there should not be the same problem to face this spring. It should be remembered that this was only brought about through drastic reductions in the prices of salt fish in the markets with the resultant hardship to fishermen and trade alike. In my opinion, in view of the steadily increasing competition from fish from other countries, we have no reasonable grounds to hope that prices will be much if anything im-[DOT] proved during the approaching season.
That was in February and the minister may be better informed in the past couple of months, because he made a statement in May saying that the prospects looked very good for better prices. What I want to draw his attention to again is that it is quite clear that in the sale of that fish last year the fishermen did take very much lower prices than they normally would have, and that applied to merchants as well. In view of his statement I hope he will see to it that no loss will be occasioned to the fishermen or the merchants in that connection.
I have just a few more minor points. In my remarks yesterday I asked for a guaranteed floor price, and I said I thought it should be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $12. I knew that I had seen somewhere some reference to $12 a quintal. I now find it appeared in a special dispatch to the Evening Telegram from a fishermen's organization. The statement comes from a place known as Ireland's Eye. I imagine they have a pretty good eye and they are not so green. This is what the dispatch says. It is dated May 26, 1951:
A meeting of the Ireland's Eye local of the Newfoundland Federation of Fishermen passed resolutions here this week calling for a floor price of at least $12 per quintal for shore fish, and also called for set prices on essential fishing equipment.
The formal resolution follows. I want to draw that to the minister's attention. That is the price that some sections of the island, at all events, feel should be paid.
There are only two other matters I should like to mention. First of all, on March 6, I asked:
Has the government given any consideration to amending the Industrial Development Bank Act to enable the bank to make loans for fisheries development?
Supply-Fisheries
At that time the answer was given in this way:
The Industrial Development Bank Act permits the making of loans for the processing of fish. Any amendment to this act to broaden its scope is a matter of government policy, and it is not the practice to forecast government policy in answering questions.
I do not know that the matter of government policy has been cleared up, but perhaps the minister would be prepared to make some further statement in that connection.
The last point I would raise is that old hardy annual, unemployment insurance for fishermen. I do not think I need go further into the arguments, because the minister must be familiar with them. The statement has been made on many occasions as to why unemployment insurance should be granted to fishermen, and he probably is familiar with all the arguments against it, as well. I raise the point now in the hope that he will be able to enlarge upon his reply to a somewhat greater extent than we have had thus far. I hope that when the minister has an opportunity to reply he will deal with these matters.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Mr. Chairman, last night when discussion opened on these estimates I thought I might make a statement. However, the hour was late. It may be however that this is not the proper occasion for my making any lengthy statement with respect to the operations of the Department of Fisheries. I lean to the view that this is the time when hon. members from the different constituencies, who are particularly interested in fishing, might be in a position to ask any questions they have in mind, with the expectation of receiving reasonable answers from me either at once or after consultation with my officials.
I would hope that we might proceed with a discussion of these estimates by first having hon. members make their statements. Whatever questions they ask will be noted. Then, when I believed the debate had run its course, I would be in a position to answer those questions one by one, and in the order in which they had been asked. This would shorten the time. There would be no repetition of questions and answers, as we have had in previous years. However, I have no desire in any way to hurry through the estimates although, like all hon. members, I want to get away, and I certainly would not want to talk too much on my own estimates.
I shall answer some of the . hon. member's questions at this time, although I found that in most of what he said he was either making

Supply-Fisheries
statements as to facts which do not require any reply, or statements which might be controversial-although I did not notice any of that kind in particular.
However, he did refer to seal fishing, and spent considerable time in discussion of that matter. This is an international affair. We have no control of the seas beyond the three-mile limit and, if the Norwegians so wished, they could fish seals outside that limit without committing any violation. I noticed that the hon. member laid emphasis upon the fact that the seals were caught and scalped when they were very young, perhaps only a day old. From the standpoint of conservation it would not matter whether a seal was one day or six months old. There would be no difference, although it may have a certain appeal when the statement is made in the committee that young seals are being slaughtered.


William Joseph Browne: There is a vast difference between a seal one day old and a seal two or three weeks old. The difference is in weight. Therefore there is a difference in the capacity the ship can carry.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The hon. member has lost my point. I am talking about conservation.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I believe I also said that seals were being killed before the young were delivered.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I regret the whole incident, and I wish to assure the committee that already representations have been made to Norway in the matter. I believe that before long some arrangements will be made whereby this practice will not continue. However, I would not like to be any too sure that the fishermen from Newfoundland do not engage in the same abuses. If we are going to say very much to Norway we would like to know that our own skirts are clear. My statement today is that we are making progress in connection with this matter of the slaughtering of .seals before they are mature. This matter will probably be dealt with at a special meeting to be convened with the other countries concerned, particularly Norway. At any rate I can assure the hon. member that it has not been forgotten and is being attended to.
He also referred to salmon conservation. This matter, whether it refers to the east or west coast, is one in which the department is definitely interested. In Newfoundland this year we have spent a sum of money on stream clearing. Our program, known as the multiple stream development plan, applies to Newfoundland as well as to other parts of eastern Canada and to western Canada. Last

year we spent $15,000 on stream clearing and fishways in Newfoundland, and this year we will spend about $30,000 on the same kind of work.
We find a ready sale for this species of fish, and I have said on many occasions in the House of Commons that we should be endeavouring to conserve and propagate such species as fast as we can. I assure the hon. member that in this regard Newfoundland will not be forgotten.
The hon. member asked whether there would be any further payment in connection with Labrador fishermen. Up to date, while we took in 150,000 quintals we have been able to market in the ordinary way some 100,000 quintals. The balance of it was given to different charities. Indications are that there will be a loss of about $327,000 in that ' operation-and it may be more. I said further that an examination was being made of the returns of fishermen, both from Labrador and shore-caught fish, and that these returns will soon be in. They are beginning to come in now, and they are being tabulated as they come. This tabulation should be completed toward the end of July, at which time we will be able to determine what the returns have been to the fishermen, and what further aid, if any, we will be able to give them.
I want to make only one other statement, which I think can be considered a statement of good intentions. As far as I am concerned, the fishing industry would not be of much interest if I did not have a keen desire to do something to increase the standard of living of the fishermen, no matter in what province of Canada they operate. They should have a standard of living which means simply having a little more than just enough to eat and a place to live in. They engage in an occupation which entails the maximum of gambling but which is of vital interest to this country. I am sure that those who sit behind me and represent other departments of government are just as anxious as I to bring about this result.
The hon. member sipoke about unemployment insurance for fishermen. I think he will realize the difficulties that would be encountered in providing unemployment insurance for six or seven months in the year and having a fishing season of only three or four months. While the problem is difficult, it has not been neglected so far as thinking about it and worrying about a solution is concerned.
The hon. member referred also to the industrial bank. The question he raised has been passed on to the Department of Finance; this is something that rests entirely with the

industrial development bank and the Minister of Finance. Several parts of the Ashing industry in the east and west have been helped by the industrial bank.


Mr. Pearkes:: Mr. Chairman, I have a particular interest in Ashermen and since my constituency joins that of the minister I imagine he is familiar with most of the problems facing the Ashermen on the west coast. I was pleased to hear the minister indicate his keen interest in raising the standard of living of the Ashermen. I am quite certain that he is sincere and I can say that his endeavours in that direction are appreciated by the Ashermen of Vancouver island.
One of the most urgent problems, and something that will contribute to raising the standard of living of the Ashermen, is the need of adequate safeguards from the storms and elements in order that boats and equipment may be protected. Many times a Asher-man has to watch his boat all night when there is a storm and no adequate protection. That means that he must leave his house and family during what should be a period of rest. In his endeavours to raise the standard of living of the Ashermen, I hope the minister will realize that it is essential for their ease of mind that they be provided with reasonable berthage and secure harbours in which to tie up their boats.
There is another matter which I should like to bring to the minister's attention and I am sure he will be able to give me an answer. Toward the end of February I wrote to the department and asked for information concerning the proposed revision of the halibut treaty. The deputy minister replied on February 28 that the halibut commissioner was in hospital, but that as soon as he came out I would have full information and the matter would be discussed. I do not know whether Mr. Clark has come out of hospital, but I sincerely hope that he is better.
Is the minister prepared to make a statement regarding the halibut treaty? During the past few years the season for halibut has been extremely short which has been detrimental to the industry, to the consumer and to the proper conservation of the Ash. A short Ashing season means that the Asherman must work long hours in order to catch his quota in a limited number of days. When the bulk of the halibut are caught in a couple of weeks the consumer across Canada is able to get fresh halibut only during that short season, the rest of the catch having to be put into cold storage. There is evidence from the biological side that it is not in the interests of conservation that the catch should take place during such a limited period.
Supply-Fisheries
This is a matter of considerable concern to the Ashermen on the west coast. They have asked for what is known as a split season and that the Ashing season be extended. I do not know what has happened since, but at the beginning of the year the Ashermen expressed concern over the fact that in the draft of the new treaty there was no provision for an adequate curtailment program. Can the minister state what progress has been made with the revision of the halibut treaty and whether any steps will be taken to provide a split season for halibut Ashing?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I think the hon. member has one of the best Ashing Aoats on the west coast which is located in Nanaimo.


George Randolph Pearkes: That is only one.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I think that I was responsible for that being placed there when the hon. member was Aghting the battle for freedom in the war. Several others have been built since. The Arst one that I know of was built in Victoria about 1935, largely at my suggestion when I was a member of the chamber of commerce. It was erected almost opposite my door. I believe that these Aoats are of great value to the Ashermen and their number have been increased since that time.
If we were to go fully into the question of a split season for halibut we would have to get down the maps and go into many details for which I am afraid we have not the time at the present moment. A suggested treaty was drawn up by Canada after the meeting of the halibut commission last fall. Although that has been done, the Americans have not yet seen At to reply to it, or have not had time to reply. I do not know what the reason is. However, we are engaged this year in what might be called a split season. After all, a split season means two seasons in one. This year we have divided area 2 and taken the part of area 2 where it has been said that the Ash come in later and therefore we might be able to get an additional halibut catch. That area has now been set aside for later Ashing with no limit, for a period of ten days in order that we may study the results of just what will happen in a case of that kind. I am sure, however, that hon. members will realize that in an operation of this kind the department is guided by the biologists, by what they say is there and what it will be safe to catch.


William Joseph Browne: I should also like to say how pleased I was to hear the minister's expression of good intentions towards the Ashermen. I have always believed he had those good intentions from

Supply-Fisheries
the first time that he visited Newfoundland. I believe he realizes the difficulties that fishermen in our part of the country have to face. When we see farmers from Saskatchewan getting up to speak in this house people say: "We are going to hear about wheat", and people are a bit bored hearing about wheat. When a member from Newfoundland gets up people say: "We are going to hear about fish," and I think people are even more bored hearing about fish. There is a big difference between the discussion of wheat and the discussion of fish. The people who grow wheat seem to make fortunes but the people who catch fish always seem to be in difficulties.


Mr. Sinnoli:: You never grew any wheat.


William Joseph Browne: The fisherman very seldom becomes a wealthy man whereas the farmer very often seems to be surrounded with luxury. I do not intend to cast any reflection on the wheat farmers, but I do want to get the minister to maintain the good will that he has towards fishermen, especially the fishermen of Newfoundland who during the past year and a half have had such a hard time.
The minister was talking about seal fishery. I am not sure that I caught all his remarks correctly, but as I understood him he said that the Norwegian sealers were killing seals only a day old, and he was not satisfied that the Newfoundland fishermen had not been doing the same thing, that we had to have our own skirts clear before we could make any complaint about the conduct of the Norwegian sealers. He also made the remark that, so far as conservation is concerned, it did not matter whether the seal was killed when a day old or a month old, or words to that effect. Sir, it does, and I interjected to that effect when he was speaking. It makes a big difference because of the number of seals which the vessel can take.
The seal grows very rapidly, about two or two and a half pounds a day, so that a seal that is two weeks old weighs about twenty-eight pounds. I am not exactly sure of the number of pounds, but it has been the practice in pur country for at least thirty-five years to have a date set when the sealers are allowed to leave port so that they will not get into the seals before the seals are a certain age, and then to have a certain date on which killing may begin. That has been in effect for thirty-five years. When the steamers come in with their catches of seals, as I have often seen them, the average weight would be thirty-five or forty pounds.
(Mr. Browne (St. John's West).]
It can easily be imagined that a seal a day old is a very small thing comparatively, and I am quite satisfied that our fishermen would not dream of killing seals that age because they would not get any benefit from them. The benefit that the Newfoundland sealers get from the seals has depended on the weight of the fat. Up to a year or two ago they got no credit for the fur. They were paid according to the weight of the fat, and it would be absurd to kill seals when they only weigh a few pounds and not to wait until they have become much heavier and thus provide a much higher return.
In replying to my colleague, the minister said that the returns for the 1950 catch being obtained by the royal commission in Newfoundland and the fisheries prices support board here would be finished about the end of July. That seems to me to be a very long time for the fishermen to have to wait. I understood from the minister and his officials that at the latest these returns would be in by the end of June, and that they should be in a position to make a report within a couple of weeks from that time.
However, I do not intend to deal at any length with this subject because the minister has spoken on it and has given every encouragement to the fishermen of Newfoundland that they can expect to be treated fairly with respect to the 1950 catch. After being persuaded, probably by the Secretary of State, the government gave a guarantee for the Labrador fishermen, and decided that they would keep the shore fishery under review. I have no doubt therefore that they are keeping it under review, and the fishermen expect that. They were very disappointed, however, that when the Secretary of State attended the fishermen's convention in April, there was no statement forthcoming from him. When I asked him in the house if he had been present there in an official capacity he said he had not, and he would not give us any statement of his impressions of that convention, although I suppose it is the most important thing that has taken place in Newfoundland with regard to the fishermen for a great many years.
This year representatives of the fishermen were summoned to St. John's from about 200 localities to hold a convention. They held that convention, and there was no official pronouncement from the government to give them any encouragement with respect to what they may expect as a result of the investigations into the 1950 catch, or any guarantee of what they may expect for the 1951 catch. As long ago as 1833, the governor of that day made a rule that the merchants should, before a certain time in the summer, indicate to the fishermen what price they

were going to receive for their catch. The fishermen have no idea, and they should have a very good idea because costs of outfitting fishermen have risen. I have a letter here from which I should like to read one or two sentences. It is from a very intelligent and successful fisherman who says that the cost of fishery supplies has advanced considerably. The letter reads in part:
"Manila rope-"
Which is used very extensively by trap fishermen.
-which sold last year for 28 cents per pound is now 48 cents per pound. Cod trap twine last year was 80 cents per pound: now it is $1.02 per pound.
He wrote this letter on May 13. I do not know if any concessions in the budget would make any difference in these prices. The letter continues:
The price of other fishing essentials has increased considerably. Some are even double the 1950 price.
I have been constantly referring to the plight of the fishermen when this subject has come up for discussion in the house because the fisherman works at a great disadvantage. Unless he can get a fair return for his catch he becomes dependent on the government or he has to leave his home and seek work elsewhere. As a result of the poor fishing in 1950 many fishermen have given up fishing this year. Here is what this man says with regard to the 1950 catch:
To say the least they are disappointed and disillusioned. I am quite sure that not more than fifty per cent of those who fished here in 1950 will return to the fishery again this year. Also, the same attitude seems to prevail elsewhere as may be seen from the northern settlement which announced that they will not launch any boats unless the government guarantees a reasonable price for fish caught in 1951, and the fishermen owner of a schooner and three cod traps, whom a friend of mine found looking for a job at Fort Pepperell.
That is a United States base. Other fishermen have written to me along the same lines. These are men whom I am proud to know, and in whose opinion I have the greatest confidence.
Another gentleman writes that the fishermen's convention was disappointing, because there was no information given about the floor price for the 1951 catch. He said that if they had known what they were likely to get for the 1950 catch they would have gone home satisfied. Then he continues:
From what I can hear the fishing will be better this year anyway. I am going fishing again, but if I have to sell at a low price I expect at least there will be one on the doorstep of the fisheries price support board.
Then he says that they heard a lot about the prices support board during the talk
Supply-Fisheries
about confederation, but it has not resulted in much benefit to them so far. He continues:
There will be a lot that won't be fishing this year. I heard some of the larger boats have a job to get sharemen, in view of what happened with the fish last fall. If we are let down this year, I fear it will see the end of the dried cod fishery.
These are very serious statements to be coming from a man of mature years, who I know is held in high respect by everyone.
Here is another letter from a man who is a justice of the peace as well as a fisherman. He says:
The cost of outfitting is so high that many of our young fishermen are giving it up and going to Greenland, Goose Bay, etc.
I feel that the minister is really sympathetic, but I have never felt sure that he realizes how important it is that the fishermen not only get a good catch but that they get good prices for the fish. An experiment is being conducted in the district of the Secretary of State by having some long liners out. I do not know why it is so desirable that an event of that kind should take place in the constituency represented by the Secretary of State. There are other places which I believe would be much more suitable. I would say there are places along the southern shore, which incidentally happens to be in my riding, which are really more suitable for an experiment of that nature. The southern shore is much nearer to the banks of Newfoundland than Bonavista. It would seem to me that long liners operating out of ports along the southern shore such as Ferryland, Cape Broyle and Renews would give very much quicker results than any experiment made from Bonavista. However, I am glad to know he is making an experiment with a drier in Bay Bulls.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: That is in your district?


William Joseph Browne: Yes, that is in my district, but it is nearer the banks. Any place which is nearer the banks means a quicker visit to the banks and a quicker return. The banks of Newfoundland have been famous for four hundred and fifty years. The fishermen from Spain, Portugal, Italy, France, England and the United States are coming there every year. These other places are really experimental. However, I am glad to know the minister is making that experiment with the drier. I feel sure that from a scientific standpoint the presence of the nine engineers he has mentioned may be a good thing in the long run. What the fishermen are concerned with now is what they can get from the 1950 catch, and what they can expect for their 1951 catch. I understand that no floor price has been set for the 1951 catch, but as the market promises to be

Supply-Fisheries
good there is every reason to hope that this year the returns will be better than last year. I want to impress upon the minister the desirability of getting those 1950 returns in as quickly as possible so that if he is going to make a payment, it will be made soon. I have every reason to believe he is going to make a payment to the fishermen because of the extremely low prices they received.
I have sent the minister copies of the returns of some of the fishermen. He has probably seen others, and in any event the fisheries prices support board has seen them. The board knows that after September the price of fish went down. The prices which the fishermen received for their catch were far too low. They were not able to do anything more than barely pay the expenses of the fishery up to that time, and the men had nothing upon which to live during the winter. Fish was selling at an average of $5 or $6 a quintal, which was a drop from the previous year of $13.45. It does not require very much imagination to know that the fishermen are up against it. I want to repeat that the fishery is the most important industry in Newfoundland from the point of view of the wide distribution of the returns when they are good. Fishermen are settled in various places all around Newfoundland, and therefore when good returns come in from the fishery they are spread throughout all those villages. Industry is concentrated; the mines are concentrated, and the paper mills are concentrated; but when the fishery gives good returns there is prosperity throughout the country. I believe the minister realizes that, and I trust that he will do all he can not only for the 1951 season but in regard to the 1950 season, so that the fishermen get the compensation which they need if they are to get a living wage from their catch.


Mr. Bryce:: With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I should like to extend to the member for St. John's West an invitation to visit the prairies. I know that I can look after him if he comes to Winnipeg, and I am sure that some of my colleagues in this corner would look after him in Saskatchewan and Alberta. We would try to show him something of the trials and tribulations of the wheat farmer. Perhaps then he would not speak in this house of the wonderful money the wheat farmer makes. We will show him something of the fishing on the prairies. He may not know anything about that, because we do not have an opportunity of raising Cain with the Minister of Fisheries. So far as we are concerned, it is a provincial matter.
I hope the member for St. John's West will accept my invitation. I know that if he does

he will not talk about the easy money that the wheat * farmers are making, especially when we explain to him about the drought, hail, frost, rust and so many other things that I do not want to take up the time of the house to list.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
141. Information and educational service, $138,572.
Mr. McLure:: Item 141 covers information and educational services. I notice there is a decrease in this vote of some $47,000. Evidently the department must have found that its policy was rather out of date. Some drastic change must have been made when they discussed ithe vote for it. I notice that there is one editor. I do not know what he can be editing now. He is at a salary of $4,000. Then four more information officers are added. The permanent positions have been increased from four to six, at nearly double the total salaries. I think there are a few items in this vote as to which we might have some more details. Possibly we could be told the reason why these expenditures are decreased. If so, let us hear from the minister.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The decrease here is because, as you know, there was pressure on us to cut down as much as possible. We have cut out one film or picture and we have reduced our advertising. There is a reduction there in the latter item of $15,000. There was an increase there of two information personnel. The total staff is down by four.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: As to printing costs, have you cut out your advertising to a certain extent? I see that the printing costs there are three times what they used to be or what they were last year. The estimate for printing costs is $22,700 this year as against $7,700 last year. What new publications are being printed or are expected to be printed this year?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The items about which the hon. gentleman is inquiring are as follows: printing of the department's annual report, $3,000; processing of Trade News, twelve issues, $1,500; printing of Canadian Fish Culture, four issues, $2,000; pamphlets and booklets for school and general educational use, $15,000, and informational material $1,200.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: There is another item there for films and displays. I notice quite a reduction in that item, from $119,000 last year to $64,500. What part of that campaign did the minister find out was not of any benefit to the department, causing him to make this

drastic cut? Was it in the form of the advertising or was it in the displays? Is it in those items that you are now reducing the costs?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: We did not find out that any of those were not of use, but we found out that it was necessary to cut some place and we felt that we could probably spare those better than anything else. We therefore cut out three exhibitions, some films and some advertising.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General services-
143.	Administrative expenses of the Newfoundland fisheries board, $35,366.
William Joseph Browne: I should like to ask the minister if any fish was sold to Spain last year after Mr. Gushue's visit there. There was supposed to be an agreement made, but was the fish actually shipped?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: No. No fish was sold to Spain.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Why the decrease in that amount? We are on item 143, are we not?


Mr. Black (Cumberland):: Item 142 did not
pass.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Yes.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Item 143 is not carried yet?


Joseph-Alfred Dion: No, we are on item 143.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I was asking the minister why there was a decrease in the amount?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The reason for the decrease here is that practically the whole staff except the board members has been switched over to the federal department. As the hon. member knows, the Department of Fisheries has arranged to transfer to trade and commerce the board's foreign representatives. They were formerly paid by this department and now they are paid by the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Percy Chapman Black: You are making fairly rapid progress here, Mr. Chairman. I should like to say something on items 142 and 143. They are under the same general heading. Item 142 shows a large increase. Some of the other estimates are down. That one shows an increase of $91,348. I think we all agree on the necessity for extending the markets for the fisheries, from the standpoint of the producer and of the consumer in every part of Canada. There has been a general complaint that while Canada is a fish-producing country it is not a fish-consuming country in regard to its population. I therefore do not think that there will be much criticism of the minister for increasing
Supply-Fisheries
the appropriations for marketing, if he is getting results. I should like to know what addition there has been to the staff in his department, and what their special duties are, having regard to this appropriation. I should also like to hear from the minister what results his department is obtaining from its expenditures and its activities.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: At the present time we have the already-mentioned investigation going on in Newfoundland as to the price of shore fish and the returns to fishermen. We also have in Newfoundland the development committee under Sir Albert Walsh. We also have another development committee in Prince Edward Island. As to both of them, we are proud that they are going on and are happy to have them at work. They are working closely with the provincial governments, each representing a joint committee of federal, provincial and trade representatives.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: The main part of that increase of $91,000 in item 142 or the whole of it is for salaries. There is no increase in anything else.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the item carry?


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: No, not yet.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General services-
144.	Industrial development service, $25,000.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: What is meant by technical services to fishermen and fishing industry? There does not seem to be any detail at all given here.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Probably I could read the explanation that is in the book here. In the statement of government policy issued by me on May 5, 1949, the following is included:
The federal government is continuing to expand its research work on the development of the fishing industry. It should also take special steps towards encouraging the application of these scientific results to industry particularly in those areas of the country where development has lagged and the standard of living of the fishermen has consequently suffered. Some of these areas are rich in resources and it is possible to raise the standard of living by improving techniques. The federal government should encourage the application of modern techniques by increasing its technical services to fishermen. It should also consider capital assistance where necessary. In these areas attention should be concentrated on the improvement in fishing methods, in the types of boats and gear, improvement in the shore

Supply-Fisheries
plants, in the layout of plants, in canning techniques in freezing and in smoking, and in special cases in the encouragement of the establishment of reduction plants. For the further improvement and development of our service during the current year, a position of director of industrial and development services was established, but up to the moment we have not been able to complete the arrangements for the filling of this position.
Where it is being spent this year is in the Bonavista area of Newfoundland. The two ships that we had down there last year were long liners. They were there last year, but they are there this year operating on a truly commercial basis. Last year they were exploring. This year we are endeavouring to see if they can fish profitably in that area.
In answer to the hon. member for St. John's West, may I say that they were sent to Bona-vista because the largest number of fishermen was in that area and because the fishermen were farther away from the bank fishing. They had to depend more on getting their catch inshore. We were carrying on the investigation where the greater number of people could have the advantage of seeing the operation for themselves.
Another service that is going on at the present time is at Bay Bulls, where we are installing a drier for light salt fish. If that has as great success as the one that was put in at Fortune for heavy salt fish then I think we will have accomplished a very great deal in these experiments for the people of Newfoundland.


William Joseph Browne: Did the
department have two boats in the Bonavista area last year or one?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: We had two boats there last year.


William Joseph Browne: These are the same two boats?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: They were doing more
exploring than fishing.


William Joseph Browne: I was aboard one of the boats and I must say that it was a very fine boat. If they were a little larger they would be better.


Gordon Francis Higgins: What did the operations cost?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: One of the boats down there this year is larger than the one we had there last year.


Gordon Francis Higgins: What did the operation cost?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Last year it cost $18,000.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Why the reduction to $25,000? Is that the reason?
(Mr. Mayhew.]


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Is the hon. member referring to the total?


Gordon Francis Higgins: The total vote last year was $50,000; this year it is $25,000.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: We have not a director set up for this department, and it was one place where we could obey the commands of the Minister of Finance for some curtailment, and we thought it would be-


Gordon Francis Higgins: It is the director's salary?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Well, the director's salary is some of it.


Mr. Gibson:: I would1 think that they would be able to catch $25,000 worth of fish with these large boats; otherwise I am badly misinformed about the richness of the fisheries there.


Percy Chapman Black: These items that we have been passing more or less overlap. I asked the minister a question as to the results of the marketing efforts of the department last year, and I had special reference to the production in Nova Scotia. Will he advise the committee what has been the increase or otherwise in the quantity of fish produced in Nova Scotia and marketed in Canada, or marketed in the United States or elsewhere, and what has been the relative value of production in Nova Scotia, say in the last two years.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: At the moment I have not the figures for Nova Scotia separately: I have the figures for the whole east coast. In 1949, $28,927,000; in 1950, it was $32,764,000, quite a substantial increase.


Percy Chapman Black: An increase in value. What about volume?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The volume was 675,197,000 pounds in 1949; 735,132,000 pounds in 1950. Therefore both the volume and value have had a substantial increase.


Percy Chapman Black: I would like to have it for Nova Scotia if the minister could give it. Every part of Nova Scotia is interested in the fishing industry, some of the counties more than others. My county is not greatly interested, except in lobster fishing, smelt and shad fishing. If I could get these figures for the province of Nova Scotia later it would be all right. I do not want to hold up the estimates.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I would be very happy to
get the figures for Nova Scotia for the hon. gentleman and other hon. gentlemen. If I am unable to get them before the estimates are completed I will at least see that they are handed to the hon. member.


Percy Chapman Black: Can the minister make a general statement as to the

Supply-Fisheries
prospects lor an increase in the markets in fact just as satisfactory a fishing industry for eastern Canadian production of fish, as will be found in any other of the Canadian especially Nova Scotia, an increase in the provinces. This is coming about, not gradu-volume of fish that can be sold in Canada ally but rapidly, if one may judge by the or elsewhere, in the year 1951 as compared number of people who are entering the with say the last two years?	fresh and frozen fish business.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: A little while ago I said
that I did not think the minister should be making long speeches. Probably I had better say something generally on this subject. For the year 1950 there has been a general increase in volume, poundage, and dollars all the way across Canada, with the exception of Newfoundland, and there we have the difficulty of marketing to which I will refer later. But the volume both in quantity and dollars is only one indication. In volume this year we are crowding two billion pounds. In dollars we are crowding two hundred million for the industry. I am satisfied that in the year we are approaching, that is, 1951, both these records will be broken. That is certainly the indication at the present time.
In addition to that there is the more substantial measurement: the per capita consumption of fish in Canada has increased approximately one pound in the last year. I think that is more significant than the figures I have quoted to the committee. In my opinion we have not by any means reached the volume that we should be eating in Canada, but nevertheless it is a substantial increase. But what is even more encouraging is the fact that the retail merchants all across Canada are taking a greater interest in their own establishments. They are installing better freezing equipment and building better fish stores. They are putting in tile floors and are making their stores as attractive as you would a dairy. We should like to see more of that kind of fish store in Canada. There is no reason why anyone in Ottawa, or in fact anywhere else in Canada today, cannot get fresh fish of good quality. There are still a few stores which have not been modernized, and which at times may have some carry-over. But from all these directions there is clear indication of encouragement.
Perhaps it would be sufficient to say that, so far as Newfoundland is concerned, there has been a great improvement. A greater variety of fish is being sold. More people are turning to the frozen fish fillets and to fresh fish. Then, a large quantity has gone to the driers to which I referred. We hope to give greater encouragement to salmon and lobster fishing, and I believe that in a very short time Newfoundland will have a tidy and well-balanced fishing industry,
I am not one who believes that the salt fish industry is ruled out of the picture. I believe we have to apply new methods to the marketing of salt fish; we have to have new techniques and have the fish put up in different ways. I believe that with this commodity we can give the working people of Canada and the United States the best possible value. We can give them the best possible breakfast with the smallest cash outlay, if I may put it that way. We have not convinced the people of that, up to this point, but I believe it will be done. I do not think I will see it, but perhaps it will come about in three or four years. I do not expect I will be here that long. However, someone will do it, and I am sure it will be carried on successfully.


Percy Chapman Black: Mr. Chairman, I know all members are pleased with the encouraging report given by the minister. This is true particularly of those hon. members representing Nova Scotia and Newfoundland constituencies. I do not believe there ever was a time in our history when there was a greater scope for encouraging the production and marketing of fish. This arises from the very high cost of competing meat foods. I was informed this week that beef was selling at $37 a hundredweight on the hoof. The prices of fish to the fishermen have been notoriously low over the years-too low, I would say.
What has been*the relative value obtained by the fishermen of Nova Scotia over the last few years? Satisfactory returns, above everything else, will encourage the fishermen to produce. There is an unlimited scope for increasing the market throughout Canada and also in the United States, if proper encouragement is given by the department to the supplying of fish in central Canada and American points, in proper condition. In the last two or three years what amount per pound has been received by the fishermen of Nova Scotia?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I am afraid we cannot answer the question as the hon. member would like to have it. However, there has been no falling off in prices of Nova Scotia fish. As a matter of fact the prices have been more stable in that province than anywhere in Canada.
With regard to production in Nova Scotia, I would say that in 1949 it amounted to 354,650,000 pounds, with a value- of $17,951,130, while in 1950 there were 359,628,000 pounds,

Supply-Fisheries
to a value of $21,071,730. The fishermen had an increase of something less than $4 million.


Mr. Brooks:: I have not heard anything about the fisheries of New Brunswick. While I am not from a fishing constituency I would ask what the situation is in that province. How has the Torquay agreement affected the fisheries of the maritimes? Are we retaining our market for salt fish in the West Indies? I notice that we have increased our trade with Cuba, and I am wondering whether that means that we have increased our market for fish. What kind of fish would they take from us in the Cuban and West Indian markets, and from what part of the maritime provinces does that fish come?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The fishing industry of New Brunswick has shown a substantial increase. In 1949 there was a production of 186,119,000 pounds, whereas in 1950 it was 239,318,000. My recollection is that the Torquay agreement has not affected the fresh fish industry, but it has opened some markets for the sale of canned fish.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Is not Cuba a large market for salt fish?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Yes; but last year there was an upset in the West Indies market, chiefly in Trinidad, due to the operations of the Scottish co-operative society which made some sales there. I believe however that they may be unable to fulfil their contract. The result is that the market is proving fairly stable, so far as the maritime provinces are concerned.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: As I understand, we are gaining markets in Cuba and are not losing any of the markets in the British West Indies; is that correct? There have been some statements to the contrary.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: So far as we can see at the moment, what the hon. member says is substantially correct.


Gordon Francis Higgins: A few minutes ago the minister said that Canadians were eating one pound more fish per person per year. Has there been any increased consumption throughout the rest of the North American continent?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: We have no figures, but our understanding is that there has been a corresponding increase in the United States.


Gordon Francis Higgins: On December 6, 1949, the minister made a statement, which I believe he still adheres to, to the effect that if the people of North America would each eat one more pound of fish per year the fishing industry would hardly begin to meet the demand.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I think that statement has been borne out by the facts because that is about the position we are in today. Most kinds of fish are in short supply rather than long supply.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fishing bounty (chapter 74, R.S. 1927), $160,000.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I realize that this is a statutory item, but I understand it is customary to ask for information on such items. I should like to know what bounty has been paid in each county in Prince Edward Island, and the number of fishermen receiving the bounty?


John Lambert Gibson: Politics.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I can tell the hon. member one thing; it is not independent politics. I would be on one side of the fence or the other.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Probably the hon. member will be surprised that I can give this information for the different counties. It is as follows:
Number Number Amount of of men of boats bounty
Kings	
128	104	$1,166.40Prince	
598	350	5,313.40Queens	
222	116	1,958.60


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Is the bounty paid to oyster fishermen or just to regular hook and line fishermen?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The regulations provide, first, that he must be a British subject engaged in deep-sea fishing in Canadian vessels or boats for at least three months. He must have caught not less than 2,500 pounds of sea fish and have fished in a boat measuring not less than 12 feet along the keel, and with not more than three men, including the owner, who will be allowed as claimant.
145.	To provide for transportation, dressing and dyeing and other expenses incidental to receiving and disposing of fur seal skins accruing to Canada pursuant to provisional fur seal agreement between Canada and the United States by exchange of notes dated December 26, 1947, $500,000.


John Lambert Gibson: How many seal skins were processed for the department and what was the total net profit?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: For 1950-51 the net revenue to the Department of Fisheries was $558,532. If customs and excise duties are considered the revenue is $820,788.


John Lambert Gibson: How many skins?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Twelve thousand, nine
hundred.


John Lambert Gibson: I should like to read into the record for the information of the minister a letter which I received from Paul Sam of

the Ahousat band. I know this Indian quite well and I do not know whether the minister has met him. If the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration were here I am sure he would be quite proud of the progress that is indicated as having been made by these people who are now capable of writing a letter of this kind. I remember Paul Sam's father quite well, and under our educational system the son has made considerable progress. This is addressed to me under date of May 22 and reads:
Dear Sir:
This is to inform you of the fur sealing issue now at hand, and which has come to a climax here in Ahousat.
About the 12th of this month a notification, by radiophone and by word of mouth, went out to seven of our seal hunters to appear in court on May 18 in Tofino, British Columbia.
It so happened that several of our boys had been out hunting seals for food as there has been a critical scarcity of salmon here on the coast all spring, and seal meat is a great medium for fish to us Indians as you know.
We were not interested in the fur seal commercially until a seal fur buyer-Mr. Stanley Roberts of Vancouver, B.C.-came to Ahousat some time first week of April.
This man Roberts had a seal buying permit from the fishery department and also from the Indian agent to reside here on the reserve for a few weeks.
With the scarcity of salmon this year for food and commercially, who would overlook $10 a skin for seals as that is the price given by Stanley Roberts? He had government tags for all seals bought, and these fur seals were inspected and OK 'd by the fishery officer, Mr. Fred Shaughnessy of Tofino.
Incidentally, a very capable and efficient officer.
The seals were inspected and the money paid after that, but the funny part is that Mr. Shaughnessy never notified us of the confiscation of skins, and even the buyer doesn't know when they were seized. The buyer Roberts says that they might have been taken at Tofino from the s.s. Maquinna on the way down. There were seven hunters involved and 12 skins confiscated.
According to the statistics there are about 4,000,000 seals on the Pacific coast.
Is that about the right figure?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: About 3 million.


John Lambert Gibson: This is the Indian's point of view on this matter. The letter continues:
To feed these seals from January to June passing through British Columbia waters, require (roughly) one salmon while passing through our waters. That means that our fishing industry is out 4,000,000 salmon.
We will reduce that to 3 million.
Surveys by the fishery department, 15 years ago, have shown that one seal requires eight pounds of fish per day. So you see what a menace these fur seals are to our industry and also to our existence. Compared to the fur seal, the sealion and hair seal is just a handful and still the government has a bounty on the hair seal.
That letter is signed by Paul Sam and Philip Louie, the secretary of the association.
Supply-Fisheries
The minister has stated what the revenue is and I presume it is a gross revenue because if these seals had been taken by our Indians we would have received excise and customs duty. There were 12,000 skins taken and we have a net profit of $820,000. The Indian's point of view is that if there are 3 million seals going through our waters and they eat one salmon apiece-they are there about 90 days-it will cost us about $3 million. I think that would be a very low figure. I would think it would probably be closer to $6 million. There is the fact that seals eat about eight pounds of fish a day. I think we could put it at $5 a ton, and that would be worth about $6 million, plus the $3 million for salmon which would amount to about $9 million that they maintain the seals take out by way of food. The Indian says that despite the fact that the government gets $820,000 in return the seal food is costing approximately $9 million. Even an Indian can figure out that that is a money losing proposition. When I first went up the west coast the Indians used to use seals as a regu- * lar part of their diet. I can well remember the great cast-iron pots. You could stuff a missionary in them. They used to be bubbling away at night.


Mr. Stick:: Did they cook the missionaries?


John Lambert Gibson: No, there were enough seals.
We never had to eat the missionaries. As I say, the seals used to be a regular part of their diet. When I first went to Ahousat that small village produced about 1,000 sealskins every year. That was a part of their general livelihood. It was never the Indian who depleted our seals. I do not think the fisheries department has ever contended that it was the Indian who cleaned up our herds of seals. It was the white man with his very intensive exploitation of the seals in the Pribilofs who did that.
The Indian says that he is restricted to the use of a small canoe and a spear when he goes out to catch seals. That used to work very well in the old days when the seals were not molested by anybody. In those times they used to come into the inside channels, and the Indians could take them quite easily. It would seem to me that the minister might very well discuss this matter with the United States authorities because they must have the same problem. They have Indians around Neah Bay and along the shores of Washington and Oregon, and their Indians must make the same representations to their government that our Indians make to ours.


An hon. Member:: And they vote.


John Lambert Gibson: And they vote. I think
probably our Indians are going to vote. That

Supply-Fisheries
is why I was so keen about having them accorded the right to vote. I have always said that I feel that people who vote get more consideration, but that does not apply to the present minister. I know that he is going to give this matter very serious consideration. I should like to think that he will recognize the fact that our Indians have some aboriginal rights. I think the Indian is the first one to say that probably a sufficient quantity of our seals should foe maintained or protected, but when that whole herd of three million seals goes past they figure they have a vested aboriginal right in them, and I think it is a little too restrictive not to allow them to take any of them.
As a suggestion, I would say that when the minister discusses this problem with the United States authorities he might say to them: We have probably 1,000 male Indians out on the coast who originally had access to these seals. Suppose we give .them the privilege of taking fifteen skins apiece each , year.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Who would police them?


John Lambert Gibson: After all, they would only
have a permit to take fifteen skins so that is all they could sell. It would be reasonable enough.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Have you never heard of
bootlegging?


John Lambert Gibson: I do not think our Indians
would go that far. It would seem to me that we would have a reasonable argument if we would say to these people:	We recognize
your aboriginal rights. With the great white father in the United States and the great white father here in Canada the Indians say that now they are not allowed to have any more interest in these seals. The government is getting $820,000 in taxes, and I am sure the Indian will look at that with a very jaundiced eye. It seems to me that some agreement should be reached with the United States so that our Indians, who have these aboriginal rights, will at least be able to get some of these seals not only for food but also for their value as fur. Nothing would be lost to anybody, and it would seem to me to be reasonable if that course were undertaken.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: What the hon. gentleman is suggesting is that we give the Indians the right to pelagic sealing. That is something that we do not give the white man. We are trying to make the Indians real Canadian citizens and give them all the rights of Canadian citizenship, but surely they are not going to ask for greater rights than other Canadians.


John Lambert Gibson: We allow them to fish salmon for food in the fall. You give them a permit for that.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: We do not allow any pelagic sealing. We do not allow anyone to kill seals while they are in the water.


John Lambert Gibson: You do not allow him to go and catch dog salmon in the fall either, but the Indians have certain aboriginal rights.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: We are not taking any of those rights away from them, but I do not think this is the time to give them something different so far as sealing is concerned. They have a right now that no white man has. They can catch seals by certain methods, with a boat and harpoon, and some of them have done not too badly. I would not think that the hon. member would be serious in saying that they should be given the right to pelagic sealing.


John Lambert Gibson: Of course if the contention is right that the $820,000 we get costs us $6 million in the form of salmon or other fish when the seals are going through, there may be no validity to that argument at all, but it certainly costs something to feed these seals.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: That has nothing at all to do with Indians engaging in pelagic sealing. That is an entirely different question. In the only examination that was carried out it was found that the seals were living on squid and herring, and not on salmon.


John Lambert Gibson: No salmon?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: No salmon, although I think if they were hungry they would catch a salmon. I think we should know more about the habits of the seal, and we intend to find out more.


John Lambert Gibson: After all, I do not -think we are making any actual profit on this. I would not like to see the seals extinct, but on the other hand it seems to me there is not too much profit in the whole business. Besides that we are making a lot of bad friends among the Indians.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.

Mr. Speaker:: I notice that there are two pipe line bills on the order paper which are to foe considered by the house in committee of the whole. Is it the pleasure of the house [DOT]

that both of these bills be referred to the committee of the whole on the one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



INDEPENDENT PIPE LINE COMPANY'


Mr. J. W. Welbourn (Jasper-Edson) moved: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 269, to incorporate Independent Pipe Line Company, and Bill No. 321, to incorporate Champion Pipe Line Corporation Limited.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


The Deputy Chairman:: First we shall consider Bill 269.
On section 1-Incorporation.


Mr. Green:: Mr. Chairman, when this bill was before the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, the sponsor called various persons interested in the proposed company, including an engineer and financial authority. I believe the members of the committee generally were satisfied that the project is very much worth while. This group plan to pipe oil, as distinguished from gas, from west of the Edmonton area down through the Yellowhead pass to Kamloops, thence to Merritt and through the Coquihalla pass to Hope, and on to the vicinity of greater Vancouver. The committee was informed that at the present time there are only about 50,000 barrels of oil per day available in Alberta for shipment to the west, the balance of the production being required for shipment through the pipe line to the east and for local consumption on the prairies.
I believe the fact that there are only 50,000 barrels available for a west coast line is very significant. The market in Vancouver and surrounding area can absorb about 35,000 barrels per day. There would be a very small amount of oil left over for export to the United States, for storage purposes or for use in some other way. The point is that if this line were going through the United States first, obviously there would be no oil left over for the Canadian Pacific coast.
Personally, as a member from a British Columbia riding, I am strongly in favour of this bill. I believe that the applicants are putting forward a very worth-while proposition. They are committed to build their main line entirely within Canada, which of course is what we have been asking throughout the debates which have taken place in the last two or three years. There was one small amendment made to the bill in committee, and I would ask, Mr. Chairman, to have that read to us when we reach that particular section.
Private Bills


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Head office and other offices.
Louis-René Beaudoin: The amendment which has been proposed to this bill is to section 4, subsection 2. The amended subsection will read as follows:
The company may, by by-law, change the place within Canada where the head office of the company is to be situate.
Shall the section as amended carry?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 5 to 11 inclusive agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Louis-René Beaudoin: We shall now consider Bill No. 321, an act to incorporate the Champion Pipe Line Corporation Limited. An amendment has also been moved to clause 4 of this bill, and the amendment is the same as the one we considered in the previous bill. Section 4, subsection 2, has been amended by adding the words "within Canada" after the word "place" in the first line. It now reads as follows:
The company may, by by-law, change the place within Canada where the head office of the company is to be situate.
On section 1-Incorporation.


Howard Charles Green: This bill also received the unanimous consent of the members of the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. One significant feature about the plans of this group should be pointed out, and that is that they propose to build a natural gas pipe line from southern Alberta to the Pacific coast by an all-Canadian route. They are prepared to build that line through southern British Columbia, over a route which they say is feasible, although last year other groups who were planning to go through the United States to the Pacific coast took the position that it would not be practicable to build a gas line through British Columbia. This year we have a group of responsible Canadian coming before the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines and stating that they believe it is a feasible and financially sound proposition to build this gas line from southern Alberta through the southern portion of British Columbia to Vancouver. Any surplus gas would be sold to the United States, and no one has any objection to that, provided of course that Canadian needs have first been met.
I believe that the applicants for this charter are genuinely committed to building a

Private Bills *
Canada-first route. Personally, I think they should be given every encouragement.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 1 to 11 inclusive agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bills reported, read the third time and passed.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Mr. Speaker, I think the
sponsors of those two bills which have just been passed owe the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) their fullest support in the future because these bills went through so rapidly.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Croll:: You mean that he did not
block them.



MOTION FOR SECOND READINGS


Mr. H. W. Winkler (Lisgar) moved: that the following bills be read the second time:
Bill No. 332, for the relief of Marion Agnes Kelsch Cleghorn.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 343, for the relief of George Keith Henderson.-Mr. Winkler.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the
house that both these bills should receive second reading at the same time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, Mr. Speaker; one at a time.



MARION AGNES KELSCH CLEGHORN

Howard Waldemar Winkler: the second reading of Bill No. 332, for the relief of Marion Agnes Kelsch Cleghorn.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on two previous occasions when this bill was called, I asked that it stand because the evidence had not yet reached us. That evidence came to hand yesterday and such study as I have been able to give to the evidence convinces me, if I needed any convincing, that this is not the kind of business that this House of Commons should be dealing with at all.
The evidence in this case runs to 34 printed pages. I have read it carefully, but I confess that the more consideration one gives to this case, the more confusing it becomes. I discover that the case was contested before the Senate committee. I discover also that when the counsel for the respondent pointed out that the petition was in extremely general terms but that the case before the Senate was particularized as to the charge of adultery, on the basis of that statement a
[Mr. Green.)
considerable portion of the time given to this case by the Senate committee was devoted to the question of whether or not there should be an adjournment of the case. If one goes through the evidence he finds the hon. senators repeatedly expressing the view that it looks as though the case will have to be adjourned so that the respondent can have the opportunity to subpoena the co-respondent whose name was not given until the first day's hearing in the other place. Finally, the Senate committee agreed that an adjournment was in order, and the case was adjourned for one day.
As one reads the evidence, when he comes to that point it looks as though the argument is fairly heavy on the side of the respondent. Then the next day, when the respondent's lawyer appears at the adjourned meeting, he reports that although he has tried to get in touch with the co-respondent in order to subpoena her to appear before the committee he has been unable to do so. She appears to have moved from the address he had for her. One does not know how hard he tried, but certainly he makes the statement to the committee that this person had moved and that he was unable in so short a time to get in touch with the co-respondent. As one reads the case, one finds that it comes to a very sudden conclusion. All through the book it looked as though there was a good deal to be said on the respondent's behalf. Then all of a sudden the case is closed and the Senate committee recommended that the divorce be granted. To be abjective, I must say that against the respondent there are one or two references in the evidence to a sum of money being transferred in return for the case not being contested. That fact is not proved, but the references are there. All told, it adds up to a story of considerable confusion. If one takes the statements made under oath before the Senate committee, the evidence is contradictory. Certain detectives bring in evidence of adultery on the part of the respondent with a certain person who is named. The respondent himself under oath denies that allegation. So there it is-a state of confusion right down the line.
It is an odd case in that it is the wife who is suing for the divorce and it is the husband who is contesting the divorce. I want to say quite frankly and quite openly, Mr. Speaker, that my study of the case and my discussion of it with some other members around the house to whom I have talked about it, leaves me quite undecided. I do not know what we should do about this particular divorce case. I think it underlines clearly the fact that we are not a competent court to be dealing with these matters. Because of that fact I felt

that I should draw the particulars in this case to the attention of the house; and I suggest to hon. members that they consider seriously whether we are doing the right thing' to continue to deal with these cases in parliament. In my view these cases should be transferred to a proper court.


David Arnold Croll: Mr. Speaker, I too have read the evidence, although perhaps not as carefully as has my friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. But I am less confused than he is. Thinking that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) would continue to be a divorce commentator again tonight, I thought that I would read the evidence in order to get at least a fair smattering of it. There is no question that the evidence is overwhelming. I am not going to read any part of it. The top of page 33 and other portions of it speak for themselves.
The hon. member made reference to the opportunity that was given to the respondent to bring in a witness, and the case was adjourned for some days.


Stanley Howard Knowles: One day.


David Arnold Croll: One day, in order to give the respondent an opportunity to bring in a very important witness. He was not able to do it. On the other hand it was suggested that the witness was available, and the argument centred around whether the witness was or was not available. The witness was not brought there. My point is that every opportunity was given to the respondent in this case to bring in whatever witnesses he could procure, and he did not bring them in.
As I have said, I think the evidence in this case is overwhelming, and if I can help settle my hon. friend's mind, this is a proper case for divorce.


Mr. W. F. Carroll (Inverness-Richmond):: At the request of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) I had a look at this evidence. I suppose we should look at all the evidence that comes before us if we are to be regarded as a court; but I have not reached the same conclusion as the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) has reached on this matter. I have some reason for thinking why the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has been so confused. The case was tried on grounds that I do not quite understand at all, and I want to say that I have tried a good many divorce cases myself.
If I was trying this divorce case, Mr. Speaker, I would not feel convinced that the petitioner had overcome the burden that was put upon him; that is, to prove by convincing evidence that this respondent was guilty of adultery. The Senate committee
Private Bills-Divorce
may have taken a different view, but two of the senators who were hearing this case did on one occasion say that the evidence was not sufficient to convince them.
Many statements were made by counsel for the petitioner which, if it was necessary to show that, were not evidence at all. For example, he turned to counsel for the respondent and said: "Your client wanted to get a thousand dollars to call this case off." I am hopeful that that did not have any influence on the senators who were hearing this case. It does look to me as if during the whole of the proceedings the case was badly tried. There were too many statements allowed to be made by counsel for the petitioner which were not evidence at all. If there was a jury present it would have had a tremendous amount of influence upon their minds. All I am saying is that I am hopeful that it did not have the same influence upon the good senators.
I am not going to make any remarks about this matter at all. If the good people who tried this case in the other place feel there was a case made out then their consciences are clear. But in looking over the evidence I find one or two statements made by perhaps two of the senators which would indicate to me that they could not exactly overcome the idea that there was not sufficient evidence in this case. Perhaps it is none of my business, but what I want to say is that I would bring to the attention of the committee to which this bill will go the importance of giving it very serious consideration. I have no doubt that they always do that. They should give the respondent the opportunity of bringing from Montreal the witness that he attempted to get.
I want it distinctly understood that I am not talking on this case because I am against divorce as such. My opinions in that regard have been placed before this house on one occasion previously. I myself have tried many divorce cases, and granted many divorces.


Mr. Fulton:: Will the hon. member permit a question at this point? He has referred to his reading and interpretation of the evidence before the committee of the other place. May I ask him whether in his opinion there were any signs or indications that there may have been collusion in this case?


William F. Carroll: Well, I do not know; I could not say that offhand. Two or three things were said, but they would not be enough to satisfy the judges over there that there was collusion, or anything of that kind. The thing that surprised me was why the petitioner did not call this lady. That has given

Private Bills-Divorce
rise in my mind to a suggestion that he perhaps could not get the evidence from her-[DOT]
I do not know. That is all I have to say. But I would like to see the committee to which this bill will go give it at least the most sincere and considered opinion and consideration that they are able to give it.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I agree with the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. Carroll) with regard to this case. I have read the evidence carefully, and it was more or less of a legal point between two lawyers. The hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) has the advantage over some of us in that direction.
I can perhaps answer the question which the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) put to the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond as to whether there was any suspicion of collusion in this particular case. I of course am not qualified to judge, but I did notice that in this case a separation had been granted by the civil courts some years before the divorce action was brought. When the separation was applied for the question of adultery was not one of the reasons given for such separation. On the strength of that one of the lawyers did allege condonation in this particular case. I think that answers the question asked by my hon. friend.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Very strong suspicion.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I am not qualified to go into this whole matter, but I want to point out that there was considerable doubt in the minds of some of the senators who adjudged this case.
In reply to the hon. member for Spadina, I would'say that the acting chairman felt that an adjournment should be granted in this case if it were asked for. It was asked for, but I would point out to my hon. friend that the adjournment was for only twenty-four hours, or one day, and that the lawyer acting for that particular party felt that that time was not sufficiently long, nor did he feel that his client could afford on the spur of the moment to get the money to handle the necessary expenses.
The acting chairman also said-and this again is a legal point-that he thought the petition had been very poorly drawn. The Hon. Mr. Kinley is reported in the evidence as saying: "I suggest that the evidence is pretty weak." On that basis, sir, I think there is reasonable doubt in the matter. I would have said nothing about the particular case if it had not been for the statement of the hon. member for Spadina and the question of the hon. member for Kamloops. But as a matter of fact, I do want to draw the attention of the public to the cost of this bill and

its mates. I have made some investigation into the cost of the printing of these particular bills and the evidence, and also as to the disposition of the bills and the evidence when so printed. This particular bill, and others like it, would appear to cost for printing, presentation and distribution somewhere in the neighbourhood of $125. I am informed this bill is one of 590 which have been passed from January 1, 1949, to the end of December, 1950. I am also told that some of these fees are decreased from the regular fee of $210 to the sum of $125. I was curious to find that the amount to which the fee was dropped was always $125, and I was told that that is the estimate of what one of these divorce cases costs by way of paper, printing, distri-' bution and other details.
It is interesting to note the sum total of costs of this bill and others like it. I have here a statement supplied me by the Clerk of the House in which he has set down information which he, in turn, received from the Clerk in the other place. In answer to my question as to what was the total cost of printing the evidence, and of the paper on which it is printed, between January 1, 1949, and December, 1950, it is pointed out that the cost of printing and paper for evidence in divorce cases as taken from accounts submitted by the Senate for payment, January 1, 1949, to December 31, 1950, was $91,926.29. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that is a large amount of money to transfer to the waste-paper baskets, which I believe are their common destinations.
Then, as to distribution, it is interesting to note that a copy of this evidence is not available to the public; and I am glad of that. I notice however that twenty-five copies of the bill and the evidence pertaining thereto are preserved in the care of the Clerk of the Senate over a long period of time, presumably for the purpose of having it available for those who would require it. If the bill is not available to the public, then I cannot see the point of hiding away twenty-five copies of it. I cannot imagine how it could be of any use, if it cannot be given to the public. While this is not a large item, yet I suggest it is a large amount of money to be spent in this direction.


Mr. Lennard:: May I ask the hon. member a question? Did the hon. member in the return receive any statistics showing what the applicant paid for appearing here?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Yes, I believe I have that. The parliamentary fee-and I should imagine that is the information the hon. member wants- payable on divorce petitions, under rule 140, amounts to $210,


Frank Exton Lennard: In each case?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Yes, in each case. In cases where it is shown to the satisfaction of the committee on divorce that an applicant is unable to bear this expense, the fees are usually reduced to $125. That is the sum I mentioned earlier. This decrease is made because, in round figures, it covers the out-of-pocket expenses. In a few special cases the fee has been reduced to as low as $75.
It might interest the hon. member to know that, of 280 petitions heard to date in the present session, in seventeen cases the fees were reduced to $125, in eight cases to $100 and in four to $75.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I love questions, if I can answer them.


Gordon Francis Higgins: What is the average all-in cost of divorces?


Solon Earl Low: All-in?


Mr. Hatfield:: That is the sixty-four dollar question. !


Mr. Speaker:: May I remind hon. members that the debate is assuming a general tone. The discussion would appear to be on divorce generally and does not relate directly to the bill before us. I have not stopped the hon. member, nor do I propose to do so. However, I trust the discussion will not go too far afield.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I
thought that perhaps in the debate on second reading one might have a little leeway in the matter of general discussion, provided it had reference to the bill. As I said earlier, I have read the bill thoroughly and could discuss it for an hour if necessary. I thought the facts I was placing on record were of more interest to the house and country. However, in view of your admonition perhaps I should say no more about it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: What I have said is on the
record.


Mr. Speaker:: As I pointed out, I had no
desire to stop the hon. member, but I would remind the house that the discussion should be pertinent to the bill. However, now that the hon. member has begun his speech, I feel he should be allowed to conclude it.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member for
Saskatoon completed his remarks?
Private Bills-Divorce


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated,
I could talk for a long time about this case, but I do not think I have anything further to say for the record.
Hon. members may be interested to know that $10 is paid by the applicants in these divorce cases for the translating and printing of the bills. I take it from this return however that that does not cover the evidence. Six hundred copies in English and two hundred in French are printed, and I cannot see the necessity for that number. They are in stereotyped form, and perfectly uniform. In view of our advocacy of another type of court, I suggest that this procedure of having a court of 102 judges in the other place and 262 here who have to be supplied with all this evidence might well be replaced, and certainly more cheaply, by a court in which there would be less judges.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.



GEORGE KEITH HENDERSON

Howard Waldemar Winkler: the second reading of Bill No. 343, for the relief of George Keith Henderson.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I shall not detain the house for more than a moment, but I should like to ask a question of the sponsor. I know we are not in committee, but before going into committee I would ask him to answer a simple question. Can the hon. member tell me from what city the petitioner George Keith Henderson comes?


Howard Waldemar Winkler: I cannot tell the hon.
gentleman that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended
speaking on this bill but since a question has been asked and apparently no answer can be given I feel obliged to say that it should be given. The domicile of the petitioner in this case is Montreal while the respondent is living in the United States. The printed evidence here runs to 57 pages. I have read it, and I know one or two other hon. members have read it, and it appears to be most confused. The case was contested before the Senate committee and I hope our committee on miscellaneous private bills will go into it very carefully.
One reason for the confusion that exists is the fact that one wonders why it was contested. When a case is contested there is usually a motive, and that motive is generally quite clear. Many times the question of money seems to be involved, but in this case both parties appear to have plenty of money. They

Private Bills
already have a separation and have no desire to live together, and yet the case was contested. It would appear to me that the woman in the case is anxious to clear her name. Certainly she denies categorically under oath the charges made against her in the petition. I shall say no more, but I do hope that the committee will look into this case carefully.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

Mr. Alan Macnaughion (Mount Royal) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 335, respecting Industrial Loan and Finance Corporation.


Howard Charles Green: Would the sponsor of the bill be good enough to make a statement?


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: The purpose of Bill No. 335 is simple and clear. With the consent of the house it is intended to change the name of the corporation from Industrial Loan and Finance Corporation to Community Finance Corporation. There is only one section to the bill which preserves all the rights and liabilities of the company.
The reason for the proposed change is that the present title is not a correct description of the type of business carried on. This company carries on a personal loan business under the federal Small Loans Act. There is considerable confusion owing to the fact that another corporation with a more or less similar name carries on a refinancing business. Consequently we are asking for permission to change the name to Community Finance Corporation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 351, for the relief of Archibald Kenneth MacLean.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 358, for the relief of Marion Evelyn Peak Collins.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 361, for the relief of Eugenie Marjorie Ross Finley.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 363, for the relief of Ruth Mary Halsey Shaw.-Mr. Winkler.

Mr. Henri A. Gosselin (Brome-Missisquoi) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 366, to incorporate the Missisquoi and Rouville Insurance Company.


Solon Earl Low: Will the sponsor of the bill explain it?


Henri A. Gosselin: This is the usual bill for the incorporation of an insurance company. Immediately after second reading I intend to move that the bill be referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.


Howard Charles Green: Could the hon. member not give us more details than that?


Mr. Lesage:: This is the usual bill asking for the incorporation of a company.


Howard Charles Green: We are entitled to an explanation of the bill on the motion for second reading.


Henri A. Gosselin: The Missisquoi and Rouville Mutual Fire Insurance Company was organized in 1835 under a provincial act. It has been in business ever since in the county of Missisquoi. The head office was at one time at Phillipsburg, but it has been located at Frelighsburg for over 75 years.
Under the old act the company could be organized as a mutual company, and the company started as such and did business in that way until 1888, when it was organized to do business under the cash system. Later it took advantage of some clauses of the same act to subscribe a sustaining capital and such capital was subscribed and it has been doing business since as both a mutual ana cash company under the mutual system and the cash system.
In order to do business in other provinces than the province of Quebec it has to obtain a licence and make a deposit in each province. As the business extended this has been found to be inconvenient and the company has asked for the present bill in order to satisfy its clientele, and to extend its business.
Similar bills have been granted to the Stan-stead and Sherbrooke, which was organized in 1835 under the same provincial law and which followed exactly the same progressive steps as the Missisquoi and Rouville Company. This federal charter was obtained in 1940. The Mercantile, with head office at St. Hyacinthe, organized under the provincial law mentioned above, obtained a federal charter in 1939. The Wellington Fire of Toronto also obtained for the reasons given above a federal charter around 1939. The Waterloo, the Gore, the Perth and other companies in Ontario followed the same procedure.
A large part of the insurance business is reinsurance. The Missisquoi and Rouville reinsures a number of Ontario companies and cedes part of its insurance to these same companies. It will make it much easier for it to obtain reinsurance by having a federal charter.

The company is now carrying on business in British Columbia, in Ontario and Manitoba and in the eastern provinces, and it is felt that its business will be facilitated if it obtains a federal charter.
The management of the company will not be changed by obtaining a federal charter and will have no more power than it has under its present set-up, but the transaction of its insurance will be facilitated.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.

Mr. F. H. Larson (Kindersley) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 367, to incorporate Co-operative Fire and Casualty Company.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May we have an explanation?


Frederick Hugo Larson: Mr. Speaker, this bill is to incorporate the Co-operative Fire and Casualty Company. The people who are asking for incorporation are co-operatives spread from one end of the country to the other. I understand the financial set-up is very similar to that of the normal corporation or company. The bill has had the approval of the superintendent of insurance, and when it is referred to the committee the people who are interested in it will appear before the committee and give the details of the incorporation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.


Howard Waldemar Winkler: the second reading of Bills Nos. 368 and 369.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have no evidence yet in these cases.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



IVY GRACE BARNSDALE MOORE

Howard Waldemar Winkler: the second reading of Bill No. 370, for the relief of Ivy Grace Barnsdale Moore.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to say one word or perhaps two-


An hon. Member:: Three.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -in connection with this case. The evidence has come to hand, and incidentally it makes it clear that there were no detectives called. In fact the only witness was the petitioner herself. The evidence seems pretty clear that her husband deserted
Private Bills
her some time ago. In fact he went through a form of marriage with another woman in the United States. The Senate committee seems satisfied that that was sufficient evidence. One of the interesting comments that I ran across was to discover in the evidence this sentence: "The respondent was called but did not appear." When one reads the evidence one finds why the respondent did not appear. He discovers that the respondent is serving a term of seven years in the Ohio state penitentiary for bigamy.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.



MOTION FOR SECOND READING


Howard Waldemar Winkler: the second reading of Bill No. 371, for the relief of Dorothy Chaffee Caduc.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The evidence in this case has not yet come to hand.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



BORDER PIPELINE CORPORATION

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, June 8, 1951, consideration of the motion of Mr. Robinson for the second reading of Bill No. 118, to incorporate Border Pipeline Corporation, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Herridge.
Gordon Francis Higgins: Mr. Speaker, I believe the last time this matter was discussed I had the honour of moving the adjournment of the debate. Some people are born great, some achieve greatness and some have greatness thrust upon them. In this particular case I think probably it was thrust upon me. I am on the third strike now, but I am very willing to accept whatever blame there is in this matter.


An hon. Member:: There is no blame.


Gordon Francis Higgins: As the hon. member very
properly puts it, there is no blame. It is a very worthy object to engage in this debate in every way. I understand that four or five bills of a somewhat similar character have already been passed this session, and that their purpose is to take products from the same locality as is proposed by this measure. There is very little difference in these bills with one exception. The exception is involved in the word "but" in the amendment, and has to do with a clause in the amendment that is in the other measures but is not in this particular pne. "But" is a very small word indeed. It has three little letters, b-u-t, but it makes a tremendous difference in the minds of members of the house who are opposed to this type of

Supply-Fisheries
measure. From talking with various members who are not in accord with the measure now before us, I am quite certain that they would be quite prepared to vote for it if it included the provision contained in the amendment and commencing with the word "but".


An hon. Member:: They did not ask my
advice.


Gordon Francis Higgins: They did not ask your advice? That is not fair because I think everybody else has been asked about this matter, and if the hon. member has not been asked there must have been an omission in some way. I am certain that the sponsor of the bill would not want the hon. member to be passed over in any way.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Siphoned off.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Siphoned off. I must say
that I have been trying to look at this thing honestly, and I can see no objection to including the amendment. Some hon. members have asked me where I come into the picture, and why I should be interested in a matter of this nature at all. This bill deals with oil, and we have an awful lot of oil, fish oil, in Newfoundland. I presume, as the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) stated the other day, we could call it a kindred subject. Oil is oil, although I doubt very much that we will ever have to construct a pipe line to bring our fish oil up here. But if there is a possibility of using such oil I would have very great pleasure indeed in asking parliament to adopt such a bill, and I certainly would include in it that it should be an all-Canadian route.
If somebody would guarantee that there would be sufficient fish oil used, then I would be quite prepared to introduce a bill and to ask that the measure include the policy of Canada first, which is the only objection to the bill now before us. I think, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot talk much longer because it is nine o'clock.
On motion of Mr. Higgins the debate was adjourned.


Mr. Speaker:: It being nine o'clock, the
house will resume the business which was interrupted at six o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES General services-
145.	To provide for transportation, dressing and dyeing and other expenses incidental to receiving and disposing of fur seal skins accruing to Canada

pursuant to provisional fur seal agreement between Canada and the United States by exchange of notes dated December 26, 1947, $500,000.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Before the committee recessed at six o'clock, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni was speaking on this very important question. I did not desire to interrupt him in any way at that time, but I should like to learn from him the source of the information he gave the committee with respect to the destruction of salmon by the fur seals of the north. This is the most astonishing information I have ever heard with regard to fur seals. If his information had been that the fur seals were eating the whales and porpoises of the north, where the fur seals live for two and a half months of the year, then that would really be news. However, nobody knows where the fur seals come from or where they go. The only time they can be located is for two and a half months from June on, and then for nine or ten months they disappear. Nobody knows where they spend that period of ten months. I want to make a few remarks about this matter because it is a very interesting subject. Before doing so, however, I should like to ask the minister a question. What is the cost of machining, dressing and dyeing-I do not want anything for cartage, carrying charges or anything like that-of the different firms namely Martins of England, Martin-Schnaufer of Toronto, and the Fouke Company of St. Louis? If the minister will give me that information now, I shall proceed with the matter later.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I suppose the hon. member realizes that some of the skins go to the Fouke Company of St. Louis, some to Martins in London, and some to the new plant of Martin-Schnaufer of Toronto. Dressing and dyeing for the St. Louis company amounted to $165,620.60.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Can you give it per skin?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: No, you would have to divide that by 7,210, and that would give you the answer. Dressing and dyeing for Martins in London amounted to $13,744.80. You divide that by 3,605 to get the amount per skin. For Martin-Schnaufer of Toronto, it amounted to $49,959.68, and you divide that by 1,203 skins.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I have not worked out that arithmetical problem, but I understand that the cost of machining, dressing and dyeing in these three plants is practically the same. I said a moment ago that this was an interesting item, especially to the Department of Fisheries, because it is one item on which they make a real profit. The government, through the Department of Fisheries, makes

one hundred and ten per cent on its investment. If all the departments were as good in business as the Department of Fisheries, the government would soon be paying off our country's debt. If the suggestions made to the government last year and the year before had been followed to the letter in 1950, I am quite sure the department would have made over two hundred per cent profit. As it is they are making one hundred and ten per cent profit, and if they are careful to see that these skins are properly processed I am sure they will make a great deal more.
According to the details given here the returns are not yet complete, but it is expected that the returns will total $1,141,169. It costs $445,000 to produce that $1,141,169. As I said a moment ago, if the Department of Fisheries will look carefully into this business and follow it through, there is no doubt that they could make two hundred per cent on their investment instead of one hundred and ten per cent. This processing is peculiar work and something that takes years of experience in order to produce a high-class article. I have mentioned already that there are three different firms in the business of processing sealskins into fur seal skins. There is a small company in the United States that we have not mentioned before but the government does not deal with them so we will leave them out of the picture. The three big concerns are Martins of London, England, Martin-Schnaufer Company of Toronto, and the Fouke Company of St. Louis. The other small firm is in Chicago, and it does a little of this work.
In my opinion the mistake that is being made, and I believe the trade shares this opinion, is that the article is not uniform. This is due to the fact it is made under three different processes. If one attends these auction sales the regrettable part of this business is immediately apparent. For instance, the Canadian skins are stamped "Canadian" and that is supposed to indicate the quality of them. If they are processed in St. Louis, in Toronto or in London, England, they still bear the stamp "Canadian". You thus have three different qualities of your own product on the market which brings three different prices. Just to demonstrate this may I say that at the last sale I attended on December 8, 1950, I found that there were 1,500 skins of the St. Louis dye. They sold for $82.68 on an average. At the same time there were 1,700 skins-you can check me to see if the amounts are correct-processed by Martin-Schnaufer Company the same type of skins, and they realized $61.02 on an average. There was a difference of $21 or more between these two groups. Now,
Supply-Fisheries
that is too much to lose because it amounted to some $32,000 or $33,000 on that one lot of skins. Further on, in that same sale there were some black skins, and the black are the most profitable dyed ones at the present time. The market is clamouring more for the dark ones than for the safari and the matari. When these skins were sold at the auction sale on December 8,	1950, the Canadian-dyed
machine skins brought $82.68 while the black skins of the St. Louis firm brought $135.53. I made a mistake in the first price. It was only $79.08 on an average. Here was a difference on our own Canadian product of $56.45 per skin. That is the reason I say to the minister and his officials that we should have, for our product or our share of the northern seals, a processing that is all the same.
If you want to sell them at a lower price, then process them in the plant that gives you the poorest article. But if the department wants to hold their trade and have a good article, then process them where you get the best article, stamp them "Canadian", and have only one fur of that kind on the market, with a "Canadian" stamp on it. It is strange to go into an auction room and find at these fur sales three different qualities of the same article, with the variation in quality all due to the difference in the processing system.
I am bringing this matter to the attention of the department because they might as well make two hundred per cent as one hundred and ten per cent. As I told them in 1946, a good many years ago, when they were not rnaking any money at all on this article, they could realize a million dollars. I was rather scoffed at at the time for making that statement. We are now almost up to that, and I am sure they could easily make a million dollars profit out of the sale of these skins, even if the take-off is only small. It is unfortunate that our 1950 quantity of skins is not all sold yet. Am I right in that?


Mr. MacNaughl:: Yes.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: They are not all sold yet?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: No. There are 14,500 skins unsold.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: They are not processed yet, are they?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: They are in the hands of the processors.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Yes; and they are not likely to be processed before the fall, so far as I know. They will not be processed in time for the early sales. However, I do not object. I want the department to understand that I am British enough to say that I do not want to take any of the business away from s
400?

Supply-Fisheries
British company. If the Department of Fisheries are satisfied to pay a quarter of a million dollars or more to build up a plant in Canada, that is a different consideration. Besides doing that, they are lessening the quality and the demand of the trade for a good article. I give this information to the minister as something which I hope he will look into. If he wants any further assistance, and if he thinks I can give it, I shall be glad to help him make two hundred per cent instead of one hundred and ten per cent.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I am grateful to the hon. gentleman for his advice. I understand that he has had a great deal of experience, especially in the fur seal business. I appreciate his remarks. We should be extremely pleased, of course, to make two hundred per cent rather than one hundred and ten per cent. It has been the policy of the government, however-and I think it is a fairly good one-that we have some competition in the business. I am satisfied that if all these skins were going to one place, even to London or to St. Louis, we might not get the best out of any of them. We think that it is wise to handle the matter in this way, even if there is for the time being some little loss.
As to saying that there should be one type of skin, I think that is quite impossible. Even from the Fouke people themselves, there is quite a variety. When there is nothing else but the Fouke skins at the auction sales, you will find quite a difference in the price per skin. The situation therefore is not just exactly as the hon. member described it. Tlje price last year went all the way from $74 to $160 per skin.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I know that.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: There is quite a variety and, as the hon. member says, it is the matter of quality.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: That is not variety.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I beg your pardon?


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: It is quality and size that does that.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Yes; quality and size.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: But the variety is all the same.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Only ten per cent of the skins we have go to the Toronto firm, and they are rapidly building up a high quality skin. I think that is the only place where we are really experimenting to try to build up an industry in Canada. When our estimates were up for discussion two years ago I remember that we were criticized for not endeavouring to establish an industry of this

kind in Canada. We are giving some encouragement to a Canadian industry and they are beginning to do very well indeed.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I think the minister's argument defeats itself when the actual goods are sold. If they are putting up a quality of processing equal to the others, I do not think there should be $56 of difference in the price that the skins command on the same market. As I said a moment ago, however, I am satisfied if the department wishes to send them all there, wipe out their one hundred and ten per cent and make a loss; but the trade will not be satisfied.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The average price of the skins by Fouke was $82.68. That is in the December sale. The average for the skins from Martin of Toronto was $61.22.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I gave the minister those figures.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Field services-
146.	Field services administration, $362,398.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Does the patrolling of the fishing areas come under this item?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: That comes under item 147.


Mr. Riley:: I want to say a word on this item of field service administration. It comes somewhat in the nature of criticism, but not too harsh, of the manner in which some of the field services are being administered in my province. From time to time I have had occasion over the past two years to make contact with the various officials in the province of New Brunswick, and the maritimes generally, and I cannot always say that the reception to my representations, logical and reasonable representations, and to my requests, has been all that I would want or that the people of my constituency would want.
1 have no criticism to offer of the officials here in Ottawa, but I would suggest to the minister that he investigate the attitude of some of the officials in the field, and more particularly in the maritime provinces, toward the representatives of the people, the duly elected representatives of the people, who go to them seeking information which they are entitled to receive.


Mr. Fraser:: The hon. member will have to come over to this side of the house.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Will the hon. member permit a question? Is it correct that he is organizing a maritime bloc?


Daniel Aloysius Riley: I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that you call the hon. member to order because

he is not speaking on the particular item on which I am speaking at the present time.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: Some months ago I had occasion to address a request to the Department of Fisheries in respect to a weir licence, for which application had been made by some constituents of mine. It took me until the other day to learn that the officials of the Department of Fisheries, for some reason unknown to me, were not prone to divulge the information which I requested in connection with this weir application. I had made representations on behalf of two fishermen who wanted to build a weir at a certain location in the constituency of the hon. member for Charlotte. I knew that no previous licence had been granted for this weir site. I asked for confirmation of this from the officials of the department. I gathered that the officials here in Ottawa were exerting their best efforts to obtain that information, but for some reason unknown to me-I hope it can become known to the minister-this information was not available.
It came to me indirectly that these officials believed that there was already a weir licence granted for this site. I finally learned the other day that no such licence had been granted and that the site was wide open for any application. I hope that in the future the minister will be able to persuade his field men that as public servants they have a duty in respect to the public whom they serve, and to the member of parliament in any riding who represents the public within his constituency. I hope that when I seek information from the department in the future it will be forthcoming a little more expeditiously than it has been in the past.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: If the hon. member would care to give me the information at another time-perhaps he does not want to say more in the house-I will be very glad to look into it for him.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: There are just a few remarks I want to make on this item. In years gone by when this item came up I stated my views with regard to the authority that was given officials of this department. I refer now particularly to young men who are taken into the department with no knowledge of the fishing industry, no knowledge of the conditions under which the industry is working. Apparently they take quite a lot of responsibility upon themselves, and they interpret some of the regulations to suit themselves, and they carry on in that manner. I have had cases brought to my attention. I want to mention one or two and I will resume my seat.
Supply-Fisheries
Only a short time ago a sardine canner of my county was building a new factory. They had built many to my memory. I would, say that every one they have built to date is of two storeys. As officials of the department know, usually they have their packing room upstairs and their salting sheds and so on on the first floor. This particular factory was being built and the second storey was partly completed when a young employee of this department, who had been with the department for a year or a year and a half, drove over in his car and told them they would have to stop building and tear down what they had above the first storey. There was no co-operation. There was no reasoning with the chap at all. He just said: "You have got to stop; you can have only the one storey. You might as well do it now as at any other time". I know the foreman of the plant very well. I know he called the Halifax office and he told them that they were building regardless of what the junior inspector might have said.
I do not believe that action of that kind meets with the approval of this department, but it is the same old story that I have been bringing to their attention. There is too much authority given to junior members of the department. They are all young men, as I say, with no experience in the fishing industry, and they have the authority to go in and put the shutters on a man's fish curing plant or whatever it may be. You can investigate further but the onus is placed on the fish processor. He has to prove that everything is in order.
I do believe that there are members in the department who should have that authority, but I do not believe it should be vested in these young men without experience.
There is one other matter I want to bring to the attention of the minister. In the county of Charlotte there is an extensive sardine industry which has been carried on there as long as in any part of the North American continent. I know that there are weir privileges that have been in my own family for thirty or forty years. They are built each and every year, and they have been operating each and every year. In the last two or three years when you paid your licence fee to the young officer-it is only a dollar-he would take your dollar and he would give you a receipt, but he would inform you immediately that it was impossible to get a licence until they were ready to operate. I cannot find any regulations of that kind in the fish regulations here and I wonder where they get the authority to take that responsibility on themselves. It has created a lot of ill feeling

Supply-Fisheries
because the regulation, that applies to one part of the county does not apply to another. The regulations that apply in Charlotte county may not apply in Saint John county under the same regulations here in Ottawa. I do feel that in employing young men on these particular jobs the fisheries department should be very careful to see that they are not power mad. From my experience I would say that a few of them, not many, when they find out they have this authority, do not hesitate at all to use it. I believe it is something that should be very carefully considered.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: Harking back to the criticism which I offered of some of the officials of the minister's department a few minutes ago, I want to make it quite clear that that criticism was not directed to junior officials in the field but to the seniors.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Field services-
147.	Protection branch; operation and maintenance, $2,435,661.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: The minister has said that illicit fishing comes under this item. I should like to have some information with regard to patrolling in my own province. How many patrol boats are used to do the work in Prince Edward Island, and how many men are employed? Early in the winter I wrote to the minister about a very capable man, a veteran who had served in the army, and I received a satisfactory reply from the minister in which he said he would see to it that this veteran was placed back on the job he had been squeezed out of. However, as time went on I found this man did not receive the appointment, although appointments were made in Queens county which he could have filled. They were filled by men from Prince county. I say this was most unfair to the veteran in question. He has complained ever since that veterans do not get a square deal. I would ask the minister to look into the matter.
This veteran stated to me in a letter that he was squeezed out because in his patrol work, in connection with illicit lobster fishing, he captured too many of the traps and gear, thus bringing upon himself the displeasure of some people who thought he was too efficient in his work because, as a result of his efforts, they were being driven out of illicit lobster fishing activities, which go on continuously in my province, with the exception of the winter season.
I bring these three points to the attention of the minister, in the hope that, even if he cannot give an answer tonight, he will look into them and give some further information.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: In Prince Edward Island we have four of our own boats on the service and three chartered boats. These are all two-man boats.


Mr. Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer again to a matter I brought to the attention of the minister and his department before. The first occasion was in December of 1949. I refer to a problem which has been in existence for some time, particularly in the southwestern section of Nova Scotia. I have in mind the diverse points of view as to the use of draggers and trawlers.
For a period of two years or so I have been receiving dozens of resolutions, and I can state accurately hundreds of letters, from people who are closely connected with the fishing industry, with respect to the use of draggers, and the alleged damage they are doing. I do not propose this evening to read many of these resolutions or any of the letters, but I should like to deal with the different points of view and to place on record as briefly as I can the views presented by those in favour of draggers and trawlers as well as the views of those who are opposed.
Those who oppose the use of draggers claim that they destroy other species of fish, and they refer particularly to lobsters. They claim draggers destroy large quantities of small fish, that the use of draggers damages the bottom, and thus indirectly damages the fishing industry. They claim that the draggers destroy fixed and set gear.
I should like at this point to mention only one resolution, a brief one which reached me recently from the municipal council of Digby. This resolution was moved and seconded by men who have been in the fishing industry all their lives. The resolution reads as follows:
Whereas the Fundy tides-
That is, in the bay of Fundy-
-are too strong to permit marker buoys to float at all times and
Whereas draggers operate at all times of the tide, this makes it extremely hazardous for fishermen to operate with "long line" or "trawl" for overnight or over-tide sets.
Be it further resolved that this board request the Hon. R. W. Mayhew, Minister of Fisheries, to have immediate regulations made to have all Canadian draggers (otter trawl) operate outside of the three-mile limit until such time as the preceding resolutions shall have been considered. By the adoption of the foregoing resolutions, the economy of this fishing area would be assured."
That resolution is similar to the one referred to by the hon. member for Anna-polis-Kings about two weeks ago, when he made reference to a resolution passed by the affiliated boards of trade of the Annapolis

valley. He said at that time that he understood that a copy of the resolution had been, or was being, sent to the minister.
The opponents of the draggers also claim that they break up the herring and haddock schools. Then they bring up the matter of the twelve-mile limit for large Canadian trawlers, and the three-mile limit for all other trawlers.
On the other side of the picture those who are in favour of the use of draggers claim that if it were not for their use there would not be the great increase in volume there has been in recent years. They claim that in order to have continuity of supply we must have the draggers. They say that those who are in the fish business cannot wire their wholesalers or retailers a day in advance and say, "We are sorry, but the weather is bad and there will be no fishing boats out today. Therefore there will be no fish."
In other words their argument is that to have continuity of supply we must have the draggers which can fish in much heavier weather than the small boats. They state that it was only two years ago when the fishermen in the St. Mary's bay area were opposed to the use of draggers for flounders; yet today that opposition has almost completely disappeared.
Indeed, I have here another resolution contained in a wire which reached me only a few days ago stating that the trawl and gear fishermen of the St. Mary's bay area had made a request that dragger fishing be stopped, and then they qualified it by limiting it to haddock dragging, thus approving the practice in connection with flounders.
Those who are in favour of the draggers say that the proportion of small fish caught and thrown back is very low, varying between five and fifteen per cent, depending on conditions. They admit that the dragging brings forth rocks-and we know that it does, but they say there is no proof that this is damaging the fishing grounds, and suggest that the use of the dragger may have the same effect on the fishing grounds as do the plow and the harrow in agriculture.
They claim that set gear is not damaged, or if so only on rare occasions, because, under the terms of the licence granted, a dragger cannot go within half a mile of fixed gear, or of a boat using handlines.
Of course all this brings up a great many questions. In going through my constituency-and, as the minister knows, the chief industry of southwestern Nova Scotia is fishing; the production of fish in the counties of Yarmouth and Digby stands fourth and fifth 80709-255J
Supply-Fisheries
respectively in Nova Scotia-one of the first questions which comes up is this: Is the twelve-mile limit fair? It is my understanding that the twelve mile limit is a Canadian law applying to large Canadian trawlers, and that under section 56 of our Fisheries Act they are not allowed to come within twelve miles of the shore. By the same token, draggers can come in from other countries and fish up to within three miles of our shores. I understand that the idea of section 56 when it was first promulgated was that it would provide protection for our own inshore fishing industry and would conserve our fishing grounds. Yet what we are doing today is reserving the area from the three mile to the twelve mile limit for draggers of countries other than Canada.
I am told by the fishermen that only a few years ago Norway endeavoured to set up a four mile limit, but this was opposed by the British government and brought before the international court at The Hague. In view of the problems that are being brought to my attention by those in the fishing industry and in view of the divergent points of view that exist I should like to ask the minister some questions which I should appreciate his answering before his estimates are finished.
In connection with the fishing limits, I should like to know whether the twelve mile limit is purely Canadian in nature, and whether draggers from other countries are allowed to fish within three miles of our shores. Is the trend toward the use of draggers and trawlers universal in so far as fishing countries are concerned? What is being done in other countries in order to protect inshore fishing grounds?
What results have been obtained by the biological research board concerning investigations as to the number of fish caught and thrown back and as to whether or not the fishing grounds are being depleted. Has there been an increase in the volume of the catch, and can that increase be credited to the use of draggers and trawlers? Is the department watching closely the situation as it affects these two large groups which have opposing points of view?
I realize, as do all the fishermen of southwestern Nova Scotia, that this is an extremely difficult situation, not only from the economic but from the social point of view. There are hundreds of fishermen who own small power boats and have $2,000, $3,000 or $4,000 tied up in boats, engines and gear. I realize that the problem is complicated further by the fact that out of 62 licences for trawlers and draggers granted in Nova

Supply-Fisheries
Scotia, some 38 have been granted in the counties of Yarmouth and Digby, 32 of these being in Digby county alone. It is from Digby county that most of the objections are being received.
I would appreciate it if the minister could clarify this situation before his estimates are completed, for the benefit not only of the fishermen but of the people generally. The people in that part of Nova Scotia are divided in their opinions but they are trying to arrive at a fair and objective decision as to whether or not the use of trawlers and draggers is in the best interests of the fishing industry and as to whether or not their use is going to be permanently injurious to those who are hand-lining from small boats.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Mr. Chairman, the twelve
mile limit is set up by a regulation governing our own nationals, and has to do with boats over 100 feet long. That regulation can be amended only by this House of Commons. Personally I cannot see the justice of allowing people from other countries to fish up to the three mile limit when our people must stay beyond the twelve mile limit. It was put into effect for the benefit of the inshore fishermen.
1 would ask the hon. member to read this pamphlet which was put out by the fisheries research board. If he does I think he will get answers to most of his questions. We are constantly studying the matter and are not losing any time on it. It is a most interesting problem. We are trying to reconcile two factions and it is not easy. You get that problem quite often in the fishing industry. Everyone who catches one type of fish feels that the other fellow is doing wrong.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Can the minister state
whether or not there is any worth-while depletion taking place on the Grand Banks?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I am told that there is no
evidence of any depletion on the Grand Banks.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I should like to make a few observations about the lobster fishing industry in Prince Edward Island. Certain regulations have been laid down for the conservation of lobsters which provide considerable revenue for our fishermen. However, illicit catching and trapping of lobsters is going on continually in the province and this is liable to destroy the industry. I do not know what effort the minister is making to get proper officers to enforce the law, but I do know that he will find that poaching and illicit fishing is proving a real menace *o our lobster industry.
'Mr. Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth).]
The parliamentary assistant will bear me out when I say that this illicit fishing begins immediately after the regular season closes. These people are unable to operate canning factories openly, so they can the lobster in shacks and the product that goes to market is not very good. In most cases when you open a can prepared in these small factories you are able to tell immediately that the lobster has been caught illicitly.
Is the department going to get after this illicit fishing and protect those fishermen who are not engaging in that type of operation? I know of one fishing community where the fishermen themselves do the patrolling. They watch over the fisherman to see that he leaves no gear out when the season ends. If he put out a trap he would be reported immediately. I think it would be an easy matter. I understand that you have aeroplanes flying over the sea to locate traps. Then you have your men on shore. These commodities are not all to be eaten right there. They have to be sold to the wholesalers and should be traceable. These people are ruining the lobster industry for the real fishermen of the province.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: D-day for lobster poaching
is the 10th of August, and there is going to be a fight. We expect to win the fight because we are going to use more boats, instructors and other people who know the job, to try to win the fight. It is not only lobster fishing in the province of Prince Edward Island and the maritime provinces generally. There is also poaching in the province of British Columbia from which I come. I do not know of any more despicable occupation than for a man to engage in that kind of poaching. We are spending large sums of money every year to protect the fisheries, and we are not going to be beaten by a few fellows who are trying to spoil the industry for future generations.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: How many fines were
collected in Prince Edward Island for illicit lobster fishing last year and how much gear was destroyed? There were quite a few men employed in patrolling, and they did not seem to get anywhere in what they were doing.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I cannot give the hon.
member the answer to that question tonight. I am informed we have the information and I will get it for the hon. member some time before we finish.


Mr. Kickham:: On the matter of poaching,
speaking for the riding which I represent, there is no poaching at all. As evidence of *[DOT]hat, last year there were nine fish guardians,

and eight of those were appointed to the constituency represented by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Fisheries, and one I believe for the constituency represented by the hon. member for Queens.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Protection branch-
148.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $154,583.
Mr. Sinclair:: Item 148 is exactly the same phrasing as item 150. To be quite sure that I am talking on the right item, I will speak on item 148. As you know, I represent a very large fishing riding. First of all I want to express my delight that for the first time in my time in parliament the estimates of the Department of Fisheries have not been brought up at the last minute. The minister has very wisely brought his estimates forward earlier in the session. In recent years the fisheries items were brought up in the last day or two, and members like the hon. member for Peterborough West would be calling "carried, carried".


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Oh, Mr. Chairman, the hon.
member never heard me call that at any time.


James Sinclair: I do not suppose there are
more than a dozen members here who represent fisheries ridings. I am sorry that the hon. member for Lethbridge is not here tonight because he would always listen to us with great attention even on the last day of the session when we would be telling our story about fisheries. I must first compliment the minister for having arranged for the estimates concerning this primary industry to be brought up early for once.
The second thing I want to say-and members in this house know I am not one given to flattery; unfortunately I have a rough tongue-is how pleased the fishermen of my riding are with the progress the fisheries department has made in recent years, and not just under the present minister. When Frank Bridges was minister some years ago he put the fisheries department on a good footing by recruiting very bright young men from the army, air force and navy for the fisheries service, and lifting the department up to a high rank in the public service. I am proud to say that the present minister- and after all he represents British Columbia as well-has carried that work forward by bringing to the Department of Fisheries his ability in business administration which has made him one of the better known industrial figures in British Columbia.
Mind you, there was not the same great need for proper organization of the fisheries
Supply-Fisheries
industry in British Columbia as there was in other provinces of Canada, but he has applied his industry to both the east and the west. That brings me to the particular point I want t to speak about. I wish to discuss two dams. The first is the Capilano dam in my riding, and hon. members will understand my interest in it when they realize that the word "Capilano" is included in the name of my constituency. So far as this dam is concerned, I want to be on record as being entirely in accord with the stand taken by the minister. Most hon. members have been to British Columbia and to Vancouver, and those who have not are looking forward to their first visit. Vancouver is a great city. One of its greatest advantages is the fact that it has an extraordinary water supply from the Capilano and Seymour rivers arising in the mountains on the north shore.
We are seeking to build a larger dam on the Capilano river, and the sport fishermen are complaining that it will cut out a very small run of steelhead and cohoe salmon which are of use to sport fishermen but of no use to commercial fishermen. I feel, and most people in my riding feel, that the water supply to the lower mainland of British Columbia is of more importance than small sport fishing, and that the stand taken by the department is right. I know that they want to establish a small fish hatchery at the foot of the dam, but I think in fairness to the people of the lower mainland, and in view of editorials in the Vancouver press, the minister should make a short statement on the intent of the department to maintain a small sport fishery but not to stand in the way of Vancouver having an expanded water supply from the Capilano river.
The second thing 1 want to talk about is something I have talked about for five years, and I am especially sorry that the hon. member for Lethbridge is not here because in the last five years I think he is the only member who ever listened to me. I am talking about the Sakinaw dam. The minister is smiling because I even flew him over this little dam one day to show him how essential it was. There is in my riding a small fishing town called Pender Harbour, a town peopled almost entirely by the very best of all immigrants, Scots immigrants, men who observe the precepts laid down by my minister, the Minister of Finance, men who work long hours. They work from the beginning of the fishing season to the end of the fishing season, and now and again they start before the fishing season and quit after it has ended. They are eager producers. I know they go fishing afterwards sometimes because they are eager to produce, and as a

Supply-Fisheries
consequence, so far as the Department of Fisheries is concerned, they are what the hon. member for Prince calls poachers. All they are are eager Scotch producers.
This is my long speech. One year I make a short speech and one year I make a long speech about this little dam, and this is my long speech. Men from this little fishing town of Pender Harbour go to sea and fish off the coast of the riding of Comox-Alberni. They fish off the Queen Charlotte islands in the riding of Skeena, and they fish in Bristol bay off Alaska. They come back in the winter to rest with their families. In years gone by the loggers built a small dam on that lake which held the salt water out. The sockeye salmon went up there, and as you know they go to fresh water lakes. When the dam was there 16,000 to 20,000 sockeye were caught right in the mouth of the little fishing town by the old men, who used to go to the west coast out in the open Pacific, and the children who learned to fish there. It was very satisfactory fishing.
Then the loggers were finished, the dam went out, and there was no more fishing. To these Scotch fishermen it was a pretty easy process of rationalization that when the dam was there the fish were there and when the dam went out there were no fish. Therefore they asked me as their member to have the little dam restored. The cost of the dam is $2,000. Any one of these fishermen with his family could have put in the dam in two days because the trees are there. However, there are various property rights involved and they would have to consult this and consult that. So I turned to the minister-it was not this minister but the third one before him- and asked for this dam to be built to protect the area. He had an investigation carried out. I am not against college graduates. I do not think anyone in this house spent longer at college than I did. The minister sent these college graduates, biologists and so on to investigate, and one of them fell off a log into the water and lost his notes. We have had more graduates in there looking at the area, but they could not find the fish. To get back to the business of the dam, all we know is that when the dam was there the fish were there, and now that the dam is not there the fish are not there.
I realize I am being unfair to the minister now, but each year there has been $5,000 in the estimates to replace this dam, and each year there was some reason why it could not be replaced. I write back to some of my Scotch friends at Pender Harbour to tell them why this dam has not been replaced. They say: But Jimmy, you know that when the dam was there the fish were there; now the

dam. is not there, and the fish are not there. Phooey on the department. Then they say: The Minister of Public Works put up a half million dollar small boat harbour for these people farther up the coast; why not this dam?
The Indians own the land on either side of the site of the dam, so I went to see them. I am glad that I am making this speech early in the session, because if it were the last day of the session members on all sides would be shouting "carried". Instead, they are listening to me make this speech. We went to see the head of the Indian band, and there was the secretary, who was a Scotchman, and myself who is a Scotchman. If it had been white men who owned the land on either side, they would have demanded a heavy rental. The Indians said they would agree to take a a fee of $25 per year to permit the dam to be built. I am backing what the minister has done for fisheries in British Columbia; I am asking his support of this project in my riding because I have failed completely to explain to the fishermen in my riding why the dam has not been erected. Members in this house know that I do not fail easily with words. I should like the minister to put on the record the reason why, for the fifth year, the little Sakinaw dam has not been built.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Mr. Chairman, I did have an opportunity of flying over the Sakinaw river with the member for Coast-Capilano. I did see it, but with extreme difficulty. I cannot imagine how any of our officials could fall into it unless he fell parallel with the stream. I am sure that if he fell across it he would have his feet on one side and his head on the other. We sent one of our officials up there to try to find the salmon, but he came back and said he could not find them. He said that if there were any there must have been too many Scotchmen there with taking ways, because there were not many fish left.
The real reason for the failure to re-establish the dam is due to the fact that we have negotiated with the Indians for the last three years and have agreed on a price, but we are now waiting for the approval of the band. This approval has not yet come to us. We cannot go there and put a dam across this creek until we get permission from the Indian band. If the hon. member can use his good offices to secure the consent of the band, we shall have his dam built inside of six weeks.


James Sinclair: I do not want to be unkind, but some months ago I was at a meeting of the band during which they gave approval. The Indians were very keen for it, because they were great beneficiaries of this dam.

But if that is all that is holding it up, I hope that next year I shall not have to make this speech which I have made for the last five years on the Sakinaw dam.


Mr. McWilliam:: Under this item, Mr. Chairman, I wish to bring to the minister's attention the vital need for adequate protection of the smelt fishing industry of the Miramichi. To Show the importance of this industry to the people of the eastern part of the constituency of Northumberland, which I represent, I wish to read into the record some statistics from the annual report of the department of industry and development of the province of New Brunswick. The smelt fishing industry of New Brunswick produced in the 1950 season 3,857,300 pounds of smelts. This amount was a decrease of 251,600 pounds as compared with the 1949 catch. While the quantity of smelts caught in 1950 showed a decrease, the landed value nevertheless showed an increase of $88,294. This decrease in quantity meant a loss of $35,224 to the fishermen.
The Miramichi bay and river produce the vast majority of the smelts caught in New Brunswick, and the drop of 251,600 pounds can be directly attributed to the heavy losses of nets and gear suffered by the Miramichi fishermen in December, 1949, and January, 1950. These losses, caused by unseasonable thunderstorms and a run-off of ice, were estimated to be $100,000. I can assure hon. members that this is a big item for the fishermen. In many individual cases fishermen lost their entire outlay on nets and gear, which had dire effects. Many of them were unable to re-establish themselves, so could not continue fishing for the remainder of the season. In some cases fishermen have been forced to give up smelt fishing entirely. Government assistance was requested from both the provincial and dominion governments. However, the governments held the view that the losses were a normal risk of the trade, and as requests had been received from numerous other localities in the mari-times and British Columbia for compensation for similar losses, it was felt that a precedent could not be established because it would have to apply to all parts of Canada.
Protection is vitally needed for the smelt fishing industry of the Miramichi. Another loss such as that suffered in the 1949-50 season could mean the finish of the smelt fishing industry in that area. The cause of the run-off of ice during the winter months, which carries the nets out to sea, is stated to be due to the washing away of the shores of Portage island in Miramichi bay. This widens the channel at that point, with the result that the former natural barrier no
Supply-Fisheries
longer exists, and in the mild weather the tides carry the ice, and the nets, through the enlarged opening into the gulf of St. Lawrence. In many cases not only the gear and nets were lost, but the fishing shanties and in two or three cases the horses were also taken out to sea. On many occasions requests have been made that artificial barriers be erected to stop the heavy run-off of ice, thereby preventing the heavy losses in nets and gear which are being suffered each year by the smelt fishermen of the Miramichi. I again appeal to the minister and, through the minister, to the cabinet, that immediate action be taken to provide that protection which is so vitally needed.
As to a survey of the situation, my information to date is that the Department of Public Works made an interim report on the matter and estimated that the cost for the works required would run in the vicinity of one million dollars. Before further consideration could be given to the actual construction, the Department of Fisheries felt that, as the matter is so important, a complete survey should be made of the fisheries of the Miramichi. I understand that this survey is now being completed.
I realize that the minister and his department are fully cognizant of the difficulties experienced by the smelt fishermen of the Miramichi; and while it has been suggested in some quarters that it is doubtful that even the works proposed will accomplish the desired objective, I strongly urge-and I make a strong plea on behalf of the Miramichi smelt fishermen-that the minister take immediate steps, in conjunction with the Department of Public Works, in the matter of providing adequate protection for the Miramichi smelt fishing industry, which is the chief means of livelihood for many good Canadians residing in east Northumberland.
Is the minister in a position to make any statement at this time?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The department is extremely sympathetic to this project. When it was referred to the Department of Public Works, the estimate for doing the job was fairly high, we thought, and w" ordered a re-investigation. In fact, at the end of the hon, member's own statement he set out the posi tion of the Department of Fisheries. That investigation will go on until we get some final answer with respect to the matter.


Gordon Francis Higgins: May I ask the minister if the Minister of Finance is responsible for the reduction of the amount of this item as well?


Mr. Abbott:: He has the wholehearted co-operation of all departments.

Supply-Fisheries


Mr. Noseworlhy:: The Minister of Finance can answer that question.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The reduction here is in the boat construction program in the acquisition of equipment.


Gordon Francis Higgins: It was for boat construction?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Yes. We are not slackening the service because we have been able to charter boats and in the past ten years have built up the fleet.


James Sinclair: Can the minister make a few comments with regard to the Capilano dam?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I intended to say something about that matter when I was on my feet last time, but I was thrown in the Sakinaw creek. The position has been known to the department for quite a considerable time. The greater Vancouver water board wanted to put a dam across the Capilano stream in order to provide the city of greater Vancouver with a supply of water. We have had engineers and biologists in there to make a study of he situation. They recommended that, for the amount of fish of all kinds that was going up there, the cost of building a fishway over a three hundred and twenty-foot dam was away out of proportion to what the fish would be worth. They therefore recommended that a fish hatchery be placed at the foot of the dam or in that area. That would be used for the propagation of the steelhead which is the sport fish and the fish that the Vancouver people are mostly interested in because many tourists come there merely to engage in sport fishing of the steelhead. It has been responsible for a good many dollars being left with the city of Vancouver or with the merchants of the city of Vancouver.
We are therefore recommending that the hatchery be built. It is at a cost of $75,000, I think, for the building itself, with an annual maintenance cost of $15,000. The lawyer for the water board was in Ottawa recently. We told him our position and he seemed to be quite satisfied with it. But he has not yet returned home to Vancouver. I will be in Vancouver, I hope, this coming Saturday and will be discussing the matter further with the board and with the game department of the provincial government.


Mr. Adamson:: Where is the dam going to be built on the Capilano? Is it going to be built above the canyon or below it?


James Sinclair: In the canyon.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: In the canyon, about three and a half miles from the mouth of the river.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Below the suspension bridge?


James Sinclair: Just above the suspension bridge.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Just above it.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: I wonder if the minister will give us some information as to whether or not he has given any consideration to the re-establishment of a salmon pond in the vicinity of Saint John harbour. As the minister is no doubt aware, the Saint John harbour salmon is probably the most palatable-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: -and the most appealing
example-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I will ask the hon. member not to discuss the quality or the value of the fish in the various sections of the country. I remember that in a debate in a previous session, this sort of discussion was allowed and it was carried on for quite some time on the merits and the value of the various fish in existence here and there all across Canada. If the hon. member wishes to speak to the item under consideration, namely "Protection branch-Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment", he will have to disregard the quality of the salmon taken at Saint John.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: It is always well to do a little bit of advertising.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: It is extremely difficult to be silent on this subject, Mr. Chairman, but I bow to your ruling. The harbour fishermen of Saint John, who take these fish from the waters as they come in from the bay of Fundy on the way up the Saint John river, have in recent years become somewhat concerned over the problem of preservation and conservation. On various occasions, I believe, I have made their representations known to the minister, but to date we have not had anything concrete in the way of evidence that the department intends to do something about the re-establishment of this pond. We had such a pond a few years ago, but unfortunately it was destroyed. Unless some measures are adopted in the near future to rebuild this pond or to find another pond in the vicinity of the harbour, we feel that we shall probably be faced with a considerable loss of revenue on the part of our fishermen; and above and beyond our fishermen, the world at large will be a great loser.


Percy Chapman Black: May I ask the
minister why his department puts four estimates of the same heading in different places, estimates such as: "construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment", which are items 148 and 150 and

items 152 and 157, a total of $653,683. The minister should inform us what construction is proposed under each of these four items, and explain why they are placed in separate positions in his estimates in the items I have just mentioned.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I think what we should deal with now is item 148. It is the only item before the committee. The hon. member for Cumberland will notice that item 148 comes under protection branch; whereas the other item of construction or acquisition of buildings to which he referred, item 152, comes under the fish culture and development branch. It is always for a different branch. Therefore let us deal with item 148, which comes under protection branch and is for the construction or acquisition of buildings and so forth. Let us deal with this item now, and we can proceed to the other item.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: Can the minister give me something in the way of a reply to my query?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I understand that some time ago they had a salmon pond in Saint John. It was destroyed and it was thought not advisable to build it again because it was interfering with some harbour works in Saint John itself. Not in my time has it been considered, but we shall be glad to take a look at it again and see if the situation has changed at all.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: I would point out to the minister that where this pond was previously located such a thing did happen. Some harbour works that were going on did tend to render the pond useless, but in the vicinity of Saint John harbour, and in the vicinity of some of the coves of the bay of Fundy, there are ample locations for the building or the laying out of other ponds. Such a pond might also be set aside in Saint John harbour itself. I hope that in the interests of the fishermen in my constituency, and more particularly the fishermen in Saint John harbour itself, some real, active consideration will be given to this project.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: This subject of the pond in Saint John has not been brought up in my time and the deputy claims it has not been brought up in his time. In reply to the hon. gentleman I said we would look at the matter again to see if the situation has changed. Possibly there are some other locations where it would be proper and right to do this kind of work. I cannot give the hon. member any other promise than that. Last year we did extend the hatchery in Saint John. When I was down there myself I did not think the hatchery was in very good shape physically
Supply-Fisheries
and I suggested that we do some improvement on it. It has been improved and enlarged, and the other matter will be looked at as soon as we get a chance to do it.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: I hate to differ with the minister or with the officials of his department. I know that this is something they cannot recall at the moment but I remember distinctly being in contact with one of the officials of the department and making the representations that were made to me by the fishermen who earn their livelihood by taking the salmon from Saint John harbour.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: There is one other matter that I want to bring to the attention of the minister. Perhaps it has been brought to his attention on many other occasions, but I have a suggestion to make. It is in connection with the size limit of lobsters in the maritime provinces. I am going to speak of the bay of Fundy area because I do not know the regulations that might be suitable in other parts of the maritime provinces. But I do believe that the department might well consider the idea of making a survey through their inspectors in the maritime provinces to determine for themselves the wish of the majority of the fishermen whether the size should be increased. I want to give a few examples of why in my opinion there should be an increase in the size of lobsters. The Conley Lobster Company, St. Andrews, New Brunswick, is the biggest exporter of lobster on the North American continent, and today they are selling in the United States of America about 95 per cent of the lobsters that they purchase. My contention has always been that you' have to give the customer the kind of goods he wants regardless of whether or not you think he is right. Very recently I wrote to the manager of the company, and I want to put on the record the brief letter he wrote to me. He said:
In reply to your recent letter regarding size limit of lobsters, we are enclosing this week's price card, together with one of March 19, which shows great discrepancy between one pound lobsters and select lobsters.
However, this does not tell all the story, as we are now selling our excessive chickens for 35 cents which is below the current Boston market price, a copy of which I am enclosing. We are selling truck loads of chicken lobsters below the Boston price of lobsters as we are receiving more than we can handle of this particular size.
W. L. Williamson
Two price cards were sent to me. I hold in my hand one for January 29, 1951, which shows select lobsters, which would be two and two and one-half lobsters, selling for 90 cents a pound on the American market; at the same time chickens, which are small one-pound lobsters, for 60 cents a pound. On

Supply-Fisheries
March 19 select lobsters were 80 cents a pound, and the chickens were 55 cents a pound. On April 23 selects were 75 cents a pound and chickens were 50 cents a pound. On April 2 select lobsters were 80 cents a pound and Chickens were 55 cents a pound.
The market in the United States today demands a larger lobster than we are producing. I realize that in areas of the maritime provinces where lobsters are canned there may be some argument in favour of a smaller sized lobster, but I do believe that if you made a survey in the bay of Fundy area today you would find the fishermen very much convinced that the size limit of lobsters should be increased. I base that argument on the fact that a lobster that weighs a pound this season, worth 35 cents, if left in the water a year and permitted to shed its shell another year, would increase in weight to a pound and a quarter or larger and would increase in value by 50 per cent. In my opinion that is a very fine investment, and I would suggest to the minister and the officials of his department that they could get the information with very little trouble through their inspectors in the various sections where the lobster industry is carried on, to determine whether in the opinion of the fishermen there should be an increase in the size of lobsters.
I want to emphasize once more that the United States market demands a two or two and one-half pound lobster, and more than half of the lobsters we are producing are of the one pound or one and one-half pound size.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: What the hon. member is saying is correct in theory, I think. It is a very controversial subject and one that would be very difficult to administer. We are having great difficulty now in getting the fishermen to catch only the size limit; we would have great difficulty if we increased it another two inches. Our difficulties would multiply.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Does the minister find that difficulty in the bay of Fundy area?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I would not like to single out any. The only way I know of doing it would be to take a sort of Gallup poll in the district. We could investigate it in that way.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: The minister has referred to the idea of having a Gallup poll. I realize that in years gone by the Department of Fisheries has obtained information through inspectors in different sections of the maritime provinces. Those inspectors get in touch with individual fishermen. They make reports, and those reports would come to Ottawa. Decisions could be based upon them.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Last year there was considerable talk about the building of a fish plant at Hunter River in Queens county. Evidently, after all the advance propaganda in connection with it, this matter died out. I understand now that a promise has been made to Prince Edward Island that a fresh fish processing plant is to be erected in the fall. I have here a letter from the board of trade of Souris, Prince Edward Island, stating that their town is better situated than any other for this fresh fish processing plant. Is the department going to build that plant in the province?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The department does not build plants anywhere; that is left to private industry. The industrial development bank has helped fishing companies, but not the department, to build such plants. I understand that at the present time one is contemplated at Souris, Prince Edward Island. However, that would probably be financed with the aid of the industrial bank.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: How much financial support would they receive?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I cannot answer that; the directors of the industrial development bank would have to answer it. The company would make application to the industrial development bank, and it would be done having regard to the value of the plant. I cannot say offhand what it would be.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Would they not have to have the recommendation of the Department of Fisheries before they could go to the industrial development bank?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Not at all.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: They would apply as a private concern?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Gordon Francis Higgins: Mr. Chairman, items 150 and 151, I suggest, might be considered together, because they both deal with the same subject matter.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Is it the wish of the committee to consider items 150 and 151 together?


Some hon. Members:: 
Robert Wellington Mayhew: This is one of the services of which we are particularly proud at the present time. It has to do with the streams service,

predator control, modified hatchery production and oyster and clam culture. I am sure the hon. member would be interested in the oyster culture, because this item would be connected with the operation of the oyster farm of Prince Edward Island.


Mr. Catherwood:: Would a proportion of this expenditure for fish culture and development be spent in connection with the inland lakes and rivers of Canada, in conjunction with the work done by the provinces?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: None of this amount is for inland lakes and rivers. They do not come under this department, but rather under the provincial government.


A. Earl Catherwood: There is no contribution in this item for the provinces?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: No, not for inland lakes arid rivers.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: What is the production of oysters in the maritime provinces, particularly Prince Edward Island? What quantity of oysters is shipped to the United States? Are we still importing from that country? What royalties are collected by the department, and what are the rentals on leases?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: In 1948 from Prince Edward Island there were 15,464 barrels valued at $123,115; in 1949 there were 12,326 barrels valued at $100,426; and in 1950 there were 16,104 barrels valued at $105,375. The bulk of that is sold in Canada, and some shuck oysters are imported from the United States.


Mr. Follwell:: I know the minister has said that his department does not have control of inland waters. However, the federal government would have control, I should think, of the export of fish. There is one condition which is causing alarm to many fishermen, and that is that Americans are coming to Canada with tank trucks, taking live fish back and seeding American lakes. It seems to me the department would do well to see how many live fish are being exported. Is the minister in a position to make a statement regarding the possibility of licensing the export of live fish, so that this seeding of lakes and rivers in the United States would not reach the point where American buyers would be able to secure all the fresh fish they required from their own lakes, instead of coming here?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: What type is the hon. member referring to?


Frank Sidney Follwell: I am referring particularly
to bullheads.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Conservation is purely a
matter for the provincial government. We
Supply-Fisheries
are ready to co-operate if there is anything we can do, but the responsibility is that of the province.


Frank Sidney Follwell: Would it be within the
jurisdiction of the department to control the licensing of the exporting of live fish to the United States?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I do not think this department would take jurisdictional responsibility without a provincial request. I do not know whether the Department of Trade and Commerce would have any authority to prohibit export.


Percy Chapman Black: I should like
to refer briefly to the culture of oysters in the Malagash district. Last year the information given to the committee was very disappointing. When the department undertook the culture of oysters in that territory it held out great expectations for the people who were directly interested. The department acquired certain beds and had them planted and cultivated, but up until last year the results have been most unsatisfactory.
I should like to know what further activities have been carried on up to the present time and what the results have been. There is a large acreage of foreshore there and at one time large quantities of high quality oysters were produced. There would appear to have been a gradual deterioration in production in the area.


John Watson MacNaught: The situation on these
flats is a most difficult one as the damage from ice is considerable. Back in 1937 approximately nine acres of the shore was reserved in the Malagash basin as an experimental farm. Experiments were carried on much in the way they are carried on in the United States and Europe. Dikes were built in an effort to provide sufficient water when the tide was out in order to keep the young oysters growing.
The great difficulty we find is the lack of interest by the people in that area. We believe that oyster spat can be collected with proper concrete containers and young oysters can be grown there. Of course, later on* they would have to be transferred to other areas. If that is done the chances of growing good oysters are considerable. But as I said before, the chief difficulty is the lack of interest on the part of the fishermen in that area.
The production of oysters along the Northumberland shore from New Brunswick down past Pictou has gone up during the last ten years. In 1936 the production was approximately one thousand barrels, and in 1946 production had increased to four thousand

Supply-Fisheries
barrels. The experiment to which the hon. member refers is going along slowly. It takes considerable time and expense to do anything on that foreshore owing to the killing of the oysters by ice in the winter.


Percy Chapman Black: Do I understand from the parliamentary assistant that there is more than a possibility of successful cultivation of oysters in that area?


John Watson MacNaught: I believe that that statement is approximately correct. I would point out to the hon. member that this is an expensive type of propagation. We have to build dikes to keep the water in and of course the problem of silting must be contended with. We feel that there are possibilities there, but the great difficulty is the lack of interest on the part of the people in that area.


Percy Chapman Black: The lack of interest to which the parliamentary assistant refers is due largely to the lack of success on the part of the department. The department undertook a certain responsibility in connection with the culture of oysters and they have not made a success of their venture. Therefore the people in the area are not interested. Do the experiments carried on indicate that there is a possibility of successful oyster culture in that area?


John Watson MacNaught: The only answer I can give my hon. friend is to read the last paragraph of a report which was prepared by one of our officials, and which is as follows:
The more pressing problem is that of securing acceptance of what is now known. While it is true that new ideas are resisted by these farmer-fisher-folk, it is probably also true that the department has not given sufficiently wide publicity to its findings on this coast. In Prince Edward Island much the same problem was overcome by distribution of oyster farming circulars and by the holding of "field days" at which the latest culture methods were demonstrated. This latter method was the more effective. The time is probably overdue when the department should attempt something similar in this part of Nova Scotia.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: What success has the department had in the culture of quahogs, or hard shell or cherrystone clams? There is a big demand for this product. Does it really take seven or eight years for them to reach the point where they are saleable?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I know Dr. Pritchard and Dr. Needier have been interested in this matter. I shall try to get more information for the hon. member.


[Stage Direction]
Items agreed to.
153. Consumer branch, $55,490.
Daniel Aloysius Riley: Item 153 has to do with the
consumer branch of the Department of Fisheries. First of all I should like to express

my congratulations to the minister on the very fine work that is being done all over the country by this branch in promoting the consumption of fish-


An hon. Member:: What work?


Daniel Aloysius Riley: -the different methods by which fish can be cooked and served, and generally by encouraging the population of our country to consume this very important natural product which abounds in our waters both inland and in the seas surrounding the country. I should like, however-and I believe I am in order when I say this-to deplore the absence of the different varieties of Atlantic fish from the parliamentary restaurant. I believe this is one place where the consumer branch of the Department of Fisheries might encourage the consumption of fish generally throughout the country by endeavouring to have the different varieties of salt water fish introduced to members of the House of Commons through their parliamentary restaurant.
In the past two years since I have been here I have occasionally had the privilege of eating some Gaspe salmon, but the main fare served to members in the parliamentary restaurant has been lake trout, Winnipeg goldeye-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I think
the hon. member should make his representations to the parliamentary restaurant committee. There is a committee on the parliamentary restaurant, and I think he should address his representations to the members of that committee.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: May I not direct my representations to the consumer branch of the Department of Fisheries through the minister?


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Yes, go ahead.


Louis-René Beaudoin: It is a matter for
the hon. member to decide. We are now discussing an item which is entitled "consumer branch" of the Department of Fisheries. The hon. member has made his point in his remarks, and I am sure the minister will do whatever he can to convey to the authorities in charge of the parliamentary restaurant the message of the hon. member for Saint John-Albert. Beyond that point I think he should address his remarks to the committee on the parliamentary restaurant.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: I take it that when the item
in the estimates affecting the consumer branch of the Department of Fisheries is being discussed it is an opportune time to bring out the point that I was endeavouring

to make, that the best method of introducing the consumption of fish to the consumer of Canada is through their duly elected representatives in the House of Commons.


Leonard T. Stick: What kind of fish?


Daniel Aloysius Riley: If I may not proceed, that is all I have to say.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I may as well say to the hon. member that the head of this branch went to the parliamentary restaurant after the press statements and made inquiries to find out if there was any truth in the statement that we were not getting proper fish, that the parliamentary restaurant was not buying the proper kind of fish. We found they were buying good fish but the facilities in the kitchen of the restaurant were not of the very best. If you want to order from the table d'hote you will probably not get the very best, but if you put in a short order you will get a choice piece of fish. There again we can only go in and inspect these places to see if they are serving the fish properly. That is as far as we can go. We cannot tell them what to do. You yourself can determine what kind of fish you are going to eat in the parliamentary restaurant by asking for it. When there is enough demand for it they will order it.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: In the details there is reference to a demonstrator and lecturer. Then there is reference to home economists. I should like to know what they do.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The home economists give demonstrations at various places in Canada mostly as to the cooking of fish. If the hon. member would care to come to the kitchen in the west block some afternoon we will give him a demonstration, and he will go home very pleased with it.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: May I take it from the minister's explanation in reply to my question that if the hon. member for St. John's West were to ask for Newfoundland cod in the parliamentary restaurant he might have it, that if I were to ask for mackerel I might have it, or Saint John harbour salmon, or if the hon. member for Northumberland were to ask for Miramichi salmon or smelts he might have them?


An hon. Member:: Or Saskatchewan
whitefish.	(


Robert Wellington Mayhew: If enough people ask for any species of fish they will be obliged to get them.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
154. To provide for the destruction of harbour and gray seals, $30,000.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: What is the reason for the decline in this item from $60,000 last year to
Supply-Fisheries
$30,000 this year? Have you found that there are not as many harbour seals? I know that in Prince Edward Island they are greatly on the increase. This year, on account of the ice floes coming down from the north, you could pretty nearly say that the place was polluted with gray and harbour seals. For the protection of the smelt fisheries there I think we should still continue to have this bounty paid for the destruction of harbour seals.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: There is a bounty on seals. Last year there were only enough seals killed to require $19,000, and we had $60,000 in the estimates. Because only $19,000 was used last year we have cut the estimate in two and put it at $30,000. I think that is the answer.


Gordon Francis Higgins: The bounty is only 50 cents?


William Joseph Browne: How much is the bounty?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Five dollars for pups, and ten for adult seals on the Atlantic coast.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Where was the $19,000 spent last year?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: In Nova Scotia $5,430 was spent; Prince Edward Island, $680; New Brunswick, $2,555; and British Columbia, $10,865. There was nothing in Newfoundland..


Gordon Francis Higgins: Nothing at all?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: No, they did not kill any.


Gordon Francis Higgins: They certainly did.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: They did not report it.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will proceed with the resolution in the name of the Minister of Agriculture concerning the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act; then Bill No. 357, an act to amend the Criminal Code (race meetings); then the resolution in the name of the Minister of Transport to authorize Canadian National Railway Company to construct a line of railway from Sherridon to Lynn lake; Bill No. 338, an act to amend the Quebec Savings Banks Act. I understand these matters are not contentious, but here is the one that comes next, Bill No. 296, to amend the Income Tax Act. We could conclude by taking up Bill No. 194, an act to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Fisheries
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES General services-
140.	Departmental administration, $281,298.
141.	Information and educational service, $138,572.
142.	Marketing and economic service, $170,788.
143.	Administrative expenses of the Newfoundland fisheries board, $35,366.
144.	Industrial development service, $25,000.
145.	To provide for transportation, dressing and dyeing and other expenses incidental to receiving and disposing of fur seal skins accruing to Canada pursuant to provisional fur seal agreement between Canada and the United States by exchange of notes dated December 26, 1947, $500,000.
Field services-
146.	Field services administration, $362,398. Protection branch-
147.	Operation and maintenance, $2,435,661.
148.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and new equipment, $154,583.
Inspection branch-
149.	Operation and maintenance, $878,451.
150.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and new equipment, $114,475.
Fish culture and development branch-
151.	Operation and maintenance, $693,844.
152.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and new equipment, $162,065.
153.	Consumer branch, $55,490.